Participatory Research and Development for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management A SOURCEBOOK

VOLUME 1: Understanding Participatory Research and Development

Edited by

Julian Gonsalves, Thomas Becker, Ann Braun,
Dindo Campilan, Hidelisa De Chavez,
Elizabeth Fajber, Monica Kapiriri,
Joy Rivaca-Caminade and Ronnie Vernooy

Correct Citation:

Gonsalves, J., T. Becker, A. Braun, D. Campilan, H. De Chavez, E. Fajber, M. Kapiriri, J. Rivaca-Caminade and R. Vernooy (eds). 2005. Participatory Research and Development for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management: A Sourcebook. Volume 1: Understanding Participatory Research and Development. International Potato Center-Users' Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development, Laguna, Philippines and International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

Copublished by:

International Potato Center-Users' Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development
PCARRD Complex, Los Baños
4030 Laguna, Philippines
Tel: +63-49-5368185
Tel/Fax: +63-49-5361662
E-mail: cip-manila@cgiar.org
Web: www.eseap.cipotato.org/upward

International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
P.O. Box 8500, Ottawa, ON
Canada K1G 3H9
Tel: +1-613-2366163
Fax: +1-613-5632476
E-mail: pub@idrc.ca
Web: www.idrc.ca

© International Potato Center-Users' Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development 2005

The publishers and authors of individual papers encourage readers to quote, reproduce, disseminate and translate materials from this sourcebook for their own use. Due acknowledgement, with full reference to the article's authors and the sourcebook publishers, is requested. The publishers would appreciate receiving a copy of these materials.

Printed in the Philippines
ISBN (CIP-UPWARD) 971-614-030-4
ISBN (IDRC) 1-55250-181-7

Participatory Research and Development: A Sourcebook Overview

The Changing Agenda of Agricultural Research and Development

Agricultural research and development has traditionally focused on meeting the challenge of feeding the world's hungry population. Central to this agenda is the need to increase agricultural production through the introduction of technologies and support services for improving farm yield.

Following the successes of the Green Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, newer challenges to agricultural research and development have emerged, such as:

Promoting more equitable distribution of benefits resulting from dramatic improvements in agricultural production.

Sustaining productivity gains through better management of natural resources supporting agriculture.

Shifting the focus of research and development interventions to less favorable environments and low-input agricultural systems.

Strengthening the capacity of local farming communities to continuously learn and experiment ways of improving their agricultural livelihoods.

Building synergy between technological change and the socio-economic, cultural and political dimensions of agricultural innovation.

In seeking to address these emerging challenges, the dominant transfer-of-technology paradigm has proven inadequate for managing more complex second-generation issues such as: diverse biophysical environments, multiple livelihood goals, rapid changes in local and global economies, expanded range of stakeholders over agriculture and natural resources, and drastic decline in resource investment for the formal research and development sector.

The Changing View of Research and Development

Global experiences now show that the changing agenda requires new ways of thinking about and doing research and development. Fundamental to this emerging paradigm shift is reassessing the traditional notion of research and development as a process primarily concerned with generating and transferring modern technology to passive end-users. Instead, research and development is now widely seen as a learning process that:

Encompasses a diverse set of activities for generating, sharing, exchanging, utilizing knowledge.

Results in a wide range of knowledge products, from technological to socio-institutional.

Builds synergy between local capacities, resources and innovations.

Draws upon diverse sources of knowledge, from local systems to global science.

Provides decision-support tools and information that enable various types of users to make strategic choices and actions.

Requires a holistic perspective of both the biophysical and social spheres in agriculture and natural resource management.

These new perspectives suggest that research and development can no longer be the exclusive domain of scientists, but rather a joint process requiring the participation of a wider range of actors, users or stakeholders. More importantly, it redefines the role of local people from being merely recipients and beneficiaries to actors who influence and provide key inputs to the process.

Participatory Research and Development (PR&D)

In reconceptualizing the research and development process, there has been a growing interest in the use of participatory approaches in the natural resource management, agriculture and rural livelihoods sectors. These have included: participatory rural appraisal, farmer participatory research, participatory technology development, participatory action research, participatory learning and action, gender and stakeholder analysis, community-based natural resource management, and sustainable livelihoods approach.

These diverse yet interrelated approaches collectively represent participatory research and development (PR&D) – as a pool of concepts, practices, norms and attitudes that enable people to enhance their knowledge for sustainable agriculture and natural resource management. Its underlying goal is to seek wider and meaningful participation of user groups in the process of investigating and seeking improvements in local situations, needs and opportunities.

PR&D has partly evolved from efforts to improve technology development and dissemination. However, field experiences show that innovations for improving agriculture and natural resource management need to address not only the technological but also the socio-cultural, political, economic dimensions such as: community structures, gender, collective action, property rights, land tenure, power relations, policy and governance.

Participatory approaches are envisioned to help agricultural R&D: 1) respond to problems, needs and opportunities identified by users; 2) identify and evaluate technology options that build on local knowledge and resources; 3) ensure that technical innovations are appropriate for local socio-economic, cultural and political contexts; and 4) promote wider sharing and use of agricultural innovations. In contrast to the linear process of technology generation-transfer-utilization in conventional approaches, PR&D encompasses a broader set of phases and activities including:

Assessment and diagnosis: situation analysis, needs and opportunities assessment, problem diagnosis, documentation and characterization.

Experimenting with technology options: joint agenda setting for experimentation, technology development and evaluation, integration of technology components and piloting.

Sustaining local innovation: institutionalizing social and political mechanisms, facilitating multi-perspective negotiation and conflict management, community mobilization and action, local capacity development, strengthening local partnerships.

Dissemination and scaling up: development of learning and extension mechanisms, information support to macro-policy development, promoting networking and horizontal linkages.

Managing PR&D: project development, resource mobilization, data management, monitoring and evaluation, PR&D capacity development.

In practice, PR&D is generally distinguished by key elements such as: sensitivity to users' perspectives, linkage between scientific and local knowledge, interdisciplinary mode, multi-agency collaboration, problem- and impact-driven research and development objectives, and livelihood systems framework.

Promoting and Developing Capacity for PR&D

While there is growing interest in PR&D, it remains widely perceived as incompatible with accepted norms and practices in the mainstream research community. In the field, PR&D demands a set of knowledge, attitude and skills that go beyond the typical human and organizational capacities under top-down research and development paradigms.

In addition, the value adding potential of participatory approaches have yet to be fully explored by research and development practitioners. There remains a major need to document empirical cases and to systematically assess impact of PR&D. Similarly, there is still limited understanding on PR&D's complementary role to more conventional research approaches, and on maintaining effective linkage with mainstream science to facilitate local innovation processes.

Nonetheless, participatory approaches are gradually gaining ground across the institutional landscape – from research and academic organizations to non-government organizations (NGOs), development agencies, and local government units. To further promote and develop capacities for PR&D, it is necessary to create more opportunities for information exchange, training and networking among the growing number of practitioners and organizations seeking to explore the value-adding potential of PR&D. Among its key challenges are:

Synthesis: Reviewing diverse PR&D experiences to identify field-tested concepts and practices for wider sharing and adaptation.

Capacity development: Developing PR&D capacities of field practitioners and their organizations such as through training, information services, networking and development of protocols.

Establishing support mechanisms for capacity development: Sustaining capacity development through institutionalized, locally-driven support mechanisms.

Integration: Creating opportunities and a supportive environment for introducing PR&D in mainstream agriculture and natural resource management programs.

The PR&D Sourcebook

The development of this sourcebook supports wider initiatives in promoting easy access to systematized information on field-tested PR&D concepts and practices among field practitioners and their organizations. It addresses the need to facilitate sharing and use of the expanding knowledge on PR&D by:

1) Identifying and consolidating field-tested PR&D concepts and practices relevant to managing natural resources for agriculture and rural livelihood, drawn from experiences of practitioners and organizations around the world.

2) Repackaging, simplifying and adapting information through the production of a sourcebook on PR&D.

3) Distributing and promoting the use of the sourcebook, including its derived products, particularly in developing countries where access to PR&D information resources is limited.

The primary target users of the sourcebook are field-based research practitioners in developing countries seeking to learn and apply PR&D in their respective programs and organizations. They may have technical or social science backgrounds but share a common interest in using PR&D's general knowledge base. They are involved in research activities dealing with interrelated issues in natural resource management, agriculture and rural livelihoods.

As a whole, the sourcebook is envisioned to provide general reference and comprehensive overview on PR&D. In showcasing the rich, diverse perspectives on PR&D, the sourcebook is characterized by the following salient elements:

Emphasis on information applicable to research- and development-oriented activities, complementing existing publications/materials that primarily focus on the use of participatory methods for extension, learning and community mobilization.

Broad topical coverage of the research and development process. As an introductory guide on PR&D, it provides general orientation to various phases or types of activities that are specifically covered by existing method- and/or tool-specific publications.

Focus on the application of PR&D within the framework of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. It consists of papers that share field experiences associated with natural resources being used in agriculture and rural livelihoods and/or agriculture and rural livelihoods that consciously maintain long-term productivity of the resource base.

An integrated socio-technical perspective that takes into account both the social/human and technological dimensions of innovation required for natural resource management, sustainable agriculture and rural livelihoods.

Cross-cutting perspective of PR&D applications, encompassing various types of natural resources, agricultural activities and rural livelihoods; this comparative mode of presenting information complements existing publications that are specific to sub-categories of PR&D applications.

Conscious effort to seek out papers dealing with lesser known projects/organizations in developing countries, especially PR&D experiences that have not been (widely) published.

The Editors
Julian Gonsalves, Thomas Becker, Ann Braun,
Dindo Campilan, Hidelisa De Chavez,
Elizabeth Fajber, Monica Kapiriri,
Joy Rivaca-Caminade and Ronnie Vernooy

Acknowledgements

Production of this sourcebook would not have been possible without the generous technical and financial contribution of the funding partners, collaborating institutions, international advisory committee members, contributors and the working group.

International Advisory Committee

(full addresses, page 222 of Volume 3)

Special thanks to Gelia Castillo, Carlos Basilio and Raul Boncodin for their valuable inputs in the development of the sourcebook, review of paper contributions and participation in critical advisory committee meetings. Thanks to Bill Carman for his editorial inputs.

We are grateful to Elizabeth Fajber and Ronnie Vernooy of IDRC and Alessandro Meschinelli and Shantanu Mathur of IFAD for facilitating donor support.

Contributors

(full addresses, pages 216-221 of Volume 3)

Working Group

(full addresses, page 223 of Volume 3)

Editors

(full addresses, page 224 of Volume 3)

Illustrators

(full addresses, page 224 of Volume 3)

Graphic Artists

(full addresses, page 224 of Volume 3)

Cover Design

Federico Dominguez

(full address, page 224 of Volume 3)

Table of Contents

User's Guide

The main purpose of this sourcebook is to inspire and guide aspiring and new practitioners of Participatory Research and Development (PR&D) to learn, reflect and constantly refine the way they work. The primary target users are field-based researchers in developing countries involved in activities dealing with the interrelated issues of natural resource management, agriculture and rural livelihoods. They may have technical or social science backgrounds but share a common interest in drawing on the PR&D knowledge base.

The sourcebook is intended to enhance access to systematized information on field-tested PR&D concepts and practices among field practitioners and their organizations. It responds to demands for wider sharing and dissemination of the expanding knowledge on PR&D by:

1) identifying and consolidating field-tested PR&D concepts and practices relevant to managing natural resources for agriculture and rural livelihood, drawn from experiences of practitioners and organizations around the world;

2) synthesizing, condensing and simplifying available information; and

3) promoting and improving availability of information particularly in developing countries where access to PR&D information resources is limited.

As a whole, the sourcebook is envisioned as a general reference and comprehensive overview, showcasing the rich diversity of perspectives on PR&D. The sourcebook is characterized by the following salient elements:

Emphasis on information applicable to research and development-oriented activities, complementing existing publications that primarily focus on the use of participatory methods for extension, learning and community mobilization.

Broad topical coverage of the research and development process. As an introductory guide to PR&D, it provides general orientation to the phases or types of activities that are specifically covered by existing method- and/or tool-specific publications.

Focus on the application of PR&D within the framework of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. It consists of papers on field experiences associated with natural resources use in agriculture and rural livelihoods and/or agriculture and rural livelihoods that consciously maintain long-term productivity of the resource base.

An integrated socio-technical perspective that takes into account both the social/human and technological dimensions of innovation required for natural resource management, sustainable agriculture and rural livelihoods.

Cross-cutting perspective of PR&D applications, encompassing various types of natural resources, agricultural activities and rural livelihoods; this comparative mode of presenting information complements existing publications that are specific to sub-categories of PR&D applications.

A conscious effort to seek out papers dealing with lesser known projects and organizations in developing countries, especially PR&D experiences that have not been (widely) published.

Sourcebook Structure

The printed version of the sourcebook consists of three volumes and each volume has several sections. The first volume on Understanding PR&D is devoted to overview papers; key concepts; and emerging approaches and frameworks. The second volume on Enabling PR&D includes papers on capacity development; strengthening institutions and organizations; networking and partnerships; policy, governance and scaling up. The final volume on Doing PR&D focuses on technology development, facilitation of local institutions; and organization of communities and stakeholder groups

The following more detailed framework was used by the advisory committee for assigning papers to one of the three volumes.

Sourcebook Development Process

The development of the sourcebook can be divided into three phases: 1) planning, 2) drafting and 3) refinement, production and distribution.

An international advisory committee and an UPWARD-led working group were formed to oversee the development of the sourcebook. The identification of candidate papers for inclusion in the sourcebook and the commissioning of new papers from invited contributors received special attention during this first phase. To gather a diverse range of materials from a variety of institutions and individuals, announcements were sent to different journals, newsletters, websites and e-groups. Once an adequate range of draft materials was identified, a first outline for the sourcebook was developed by the UPWARD working group and reviewed by the advisory committee. The working group and advisory committee also developed guidelines for the development of the sourcebook.

The second phase focused on the development of a first draft of the paper contributions. The UPWARD working group carried out a preliminary screening and many of these materials consisted of existing papers written for different purposes and audiences. Specific suggestions on how to repackage papers were developed by the working group. This was followed by a "writeshop" where papers were repackaged to shorten and refocus them on key messages relevant to participatory research and development. Some papers were merged, and others were split into several shorter pieces. When topic gaps were identified a special effort was made to search for papers or to solicit new contributions. The writeshop involved the UPWARD working group, editors, artists and layout specialists. After the writeshop, repackaged papers were sent back to the original authors for their feedback and comments. These comments guided the production staff in the development of second drafts. At the end of this process, each member of the advisory committee was provided with a copy of the full manuscript for review.

The final phase covered the refinement, production and distribution of the sourcebook. The advisory committee met with the UPWARD working group, editors, and with representatives of collaborating and donor institutions. The structure of the sourcebook was refined, each paper was reviewed and new gaps in the compilation were identified. Each member of the advisory committee took responsibility for identifying and inviting authors to develop specific papers to fill the gaps. These new submissions were forwarded to the UPWARD working group for repackaging and finalization. Out of the 155 paper contributions screened, 79 papers are included in this final compilation. A camera-ready copy of the sourcebook was prepared for final printing.

It is important to note that each article in the sourcebook is designed to stand on its own and can be read and used independently. The publishers and authors of individual papers encourage readers to quote, reproduce, disseminate and translate materials from this sourcebook for their own use. Due acknowledgement, with full reference to the article's authors and the sourcebook publishers, is requested. The publishers would appreciate receiving a copy of these materials.

Index

(Numbers refer to the paper number indicated at the upper right hand corner of the first page of each article.)

This page intentionally left blank.

Volume 1
UNDERSTANDING Participatory Research and Development

Volume Overview

Participatory research and development (PR&D) can be framed as "doing research and development work with people" instead of "doing research and development work for people".

If it is as simple as that, why then are we devoting an entire volume to overview, concept, approach and framework papers? As the papers in this volume point out, participatory approaches to research and development go beyond the traditional understanding of research and development in several key ways. Traditionally, research, extension and adoption of innovations have been understood as a pipeline, where researchers develop innovations, extension workers spread them and farmers adopt or reject them. This mental model of innovation is limited for a number of reasons and many of its limitations are highlighted in different papers of this volume.

Participatory approaches, on the other hand, conceptualize farmers and their livelihoods at the center of the innovation process. Farmers have always developed and/or adapted innovations and new innovations need to be rooted in farmers' natural, social and cultural reality in order to be useful. If research, advisory services and other organizations are to make a useful contribution to this innovation process, they need to relate much better to farmers' reality than they have in the past. This requires some fundamental changes in the way these organizations and their staff understand their roles and responsibilities, and implies a whole range of conceptual consequences, structural adjustments and organizational changes. To really do research with farmers, it is not enough to learn and apply a few "participatory methods" in the field or to ask farmers for their opinions about a new technology. Unfortunately, most research organizations have been slow to tackle the more fundamental challenges like changing their concepts of what constitutes valid knowledge and how fruitful interaction between local and scientific knowledge systems can be framed.

These and other conceptual issues are discussed in the papers of this first volume. You will find that the papers we have selected do not all reach the same conclusions. Different perceptions of PR&D exist and we offer them to you so that you can draw your own conclusions and decide for yourself which understanding is most useful for your work.

The papers of this volume, Understanding Participatory Research and Development, are organized in four sections:

Typologies and Concepts

Approaches

Participatory Technology Development

Participatory Natural Resource Management

We hope you will find our selection thought-provoking and helpful for further developing your own understanding of participatory research and development.

Typologies and Concepts

This page intentionally left blank.

1
Definitions, Assumptions, Characteristics and Types of Farmer Participatory Research

Farmer participatory research is...

a method in which the major emphasis is on production research, planned and carried out by and with the farmers on their own fields (Harwood, 1979).

a systematic approach of evolving or adapting technology among the people of a community (Tan, 1985).

a process where "the farmer acts as a subject who investigates, measures, and studies in collaboration with researchers" (Ashby et al., 1987).

a practical process for bringing together the knowledge and research capacities of the local farming communities with that of the commercial and scientific institutions in an interactive way (Haverkort et al., 1988).

The term was coined by Farrington and Martin in 1987 but the approach has also been called farmer-back-to-farmer research, farmer-first-and-last research, and participatory technology development by different proponents of the approach.

The focus of farmer participatory research is the development of agricultural technology to increase productivity. This centers on the identification, development or adaptation, and use of technologies specifically tailored to meet the needs of small, resource-poor farmers.

A basic tenet of this approach is that agricultural technology must emerge from the farmers' needs as they identify them. Farmers conduct experiments and evaluate the appropriateness of a technology on the basis of their own criteria.

Main Components and Characteristics of Farmer Participatory Research

1. The main goal of farmer participatory research is to develop appropriate agricultural technology to meet the production needs of the small, resource-poor farmers.

It is the reverse of the transfer of technology paradigm.

It involves small, resource-poor farmers to generate or adapt appropriate technology on-farm.

It includes farmers in the decision-making process. It wants to find out which aspect of an agriculture practice or technology the farmer would like to work on to improve.

2. Farmers participate actively in the entire farmer participatory research process.

Farmers become the researchers, experimenters and evaluators in this process. They actively participate in the identification of problems, needs, opportunities and priorities, in the design and implementation of experiments, and in the evaluation of results to ensure that the research will focus on their needs.

Indigenous knowledge and the capacity for experimentation facilitate the generation of technology. Farmers' knowledge of their own farming systems, including climate and soils, and the social, institutional and economic environment, is vital to the development of appropriate technologies.

Both farmers' and researchers' knowledge are crucial in coming up with technologies that fit local environment and circumstances.

3. Research is conducted in farmers' fields.

The research is conducted on-farm as this is where production occurs and farmers make their major production decisions.

Technologies developed in real conditions reflect the objectives and criteria of farmers based on their access to resources and inputs, agronomic constraints, marketing possibilities and so on. Appropriate technology is more likely to be developed.

Since farmer participatory research is location-specific, research must be conducted on farms representative of those in other areas so the technology developed can be more broadly disseminated.

4. The scientist is an investigator, colleague and advisor.

Scientists learn and work with farmers, facilitating and providing support. Together they set the research agenda, and experiment with and evaluate technologies.

The scientist is a colleague and advisor who brings new ideas and/or unknown technologies to the community. He or she can also facilitate analysis of the farming system to identify potential areas for improvement and support the informal agricultural research of farmers.

5. Farmer participatory research is based on a systems perspective.

A farm is a system composed of interacting subsystems that include land, labor, capital, crop and animal production, off-farm income, social and economic components, physical and biological components, etc.

Farmer participatory researchers emphasize the importance of understanding the entire system. The research effort focuses on solving an agricultural technology problem in order to benefit the farm as a whole.

Farmer participatory research promotes gradual, adaptive changes in the farming system rather than the abrupt transformation of the system.

6. Farmer participatory research requires interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers and farmers.

Interdisciplinary analysis of the farming system is imperative for successful farmer participatory research. This involves collaboration between farmers and agricultural and social scientists. The research agenda must be established and the entire process focused on farmers' real needs. Dialogue between scientists and farmers is essential.

Interaction between farmers and scientists can be contractual, consultative, collaborative or collegial. Ideally, this is a relationship between legitimate colleagues and partners working as equals.

Direct interaction between researchers and farmers increases the researchers' understanding of the farmers' decision-making criteria and of the conditions in which they work. Researchers have to make sure that solutions emerge from a holistic analysis by farmers and researchers together.

7. Farmer participatory research promotes innovative methodologies and flexibility.

Proponents of farmer participatory research encourage the use of different innovative methods. Creative methodologies are necessary in developing appropriate technologies for resource-poor farmers working under very different conditions.

Participatory research promotes low cost technologies and a minimum of external inputs by using locally-available resources and strengthening the farmer's experimental capacity. These features aim at sustainable and environmentally-sound development.

Because this approach is broad, flexible and adaptive, scientists and farmers must be in continuous contact to agree on research procedures, monitor trials and respond to unexpected changes along the way. Because initial assumptions, hypotheses, needs and local conditions may change over time, flexibility facilitates adaptation to new circumstances.

Underlying Assumptions of Farmer Participatory Research

One of the principal tenets underlying farmer participatory research is that farmers act rationally in using resources available to achieve their production needs. Farmers manage a complex set of biological processes which transform these resources into useful products, either for home consumption or for sale.

Decisions about crop and livestock production, and the methods and timing of cultivation, husbandry and harvesting are determined not only by physical and biological constraints but also by economic, socio-political, infrastructural and policy factors that make up the larger milieu within which farmers operate.

In undertaking a farmer participatory research project, researchers assume that farmers: possess indigenous knowledge of their farming systems and their environment and have a capacity for experimentation that must be used and strengthened for technology development.

Farmers' Indigenous Knowledge Systems

Indigenous knowledge systems consist of the "theories, beliefs, practices, and technologies that all peoples in all times and places have elaborated without direct inputs from the modern, formal, scientific establishment" (McCorkle, 1989). Indigenous knowledge has been regarded as "backward and irrational" by researchers who rely on science-based knowledge. However, the fact that scientists are unaware of the scientific value, principle, or explanation for a practice does not mean the said practices or knowledge do not work well for farmers nor that they lack a scientific basis. It just might be that no one has conducted a research on traditional farming practices.

According to Howes and Chambers (1979), this is due, at least in part, to the dependence of officials and experts on scientific knowledge to legitimize their superior status, and in the process, pull down indigenous technical knowledge. Scientists often do not allow farmers to participate in the generation of new technical knowledge and agricultural practices. Thus, the task of scientists involved in farmer participatory research is to engage farmers in research so that the latter will gain confidence and knowledge.

Indigenous knowledge systems are concrete, practical, utilitarian, broad, detailed, comprehensive, and usually sustainable. They are based on empirical observation, trial and error, and controlled experimentation over centuries. Years of experience have led to the development of sustainable farming practices involving a minimum of risk. Indigenous knowledge systems do not focus exclusively on farming practices. In addition to agricultural knowledge, the adaptations farmers have evolved lead to knowledge about health, education, housing, community organization, management of local resources, etc.

Farmers' Capacity for Experimentation

Farmers' capacity for research and experimentation is generally not acknowledged by agricultural researchers and society at large. However, with the growing recognition of the value and usefulness of indigenous knowledge systems, scientists are increasingly aware of farmers' capacity for experimentation resulting in the evolution and adaptation of indigenous knowledge systems to production needs.

For 10,000 years, farmers have been experimenting to develop their farming systems which has had an evolutionary impact on plants, animals and the land. Aside from experiments to increase production, they also looked into processing and storage as well. Here, the farmer is "an active actor in the process: selecting, consciously observing, and manipulating and experimenting with plants, animals, tools, and the environment to improve production output" (Rhoades, 1987).

Farmers experiment in order to adjust to changing circumstances. This experimentation has led to the development of productive and sustainable farming systems well suited to their needs, environment, and resources. Examples: domestication of wild species; and selection/breeding for desirable qualities of a species.

Major breakthroughs in technology generated by scientists in experimental stations have been based on experiments conducted by farmers. Examples: invention of diffuse light storage in Peru; introduction of paddy rice production in the Amazon basin; rice production in Bangladesh and wheat in Mexico; and farmers' successful adaptations of high-yield varieties of wheat in India and Bangladesh in the 1960s and 1970s.

The emphasis on improving farmers' inherent capacity for experimentation is an important element in the sustainability of agricultural development programs. When an organization withdraws from a region, farmers continue to conduct experiments and share information with members of farmers' groups and organizations.

Rural communities throughout the world are more than just "passive recipients of technology that is transferred to them from Western countries or formal research and development programs" as shown by the examples given.

The three interrelated types of information generated by farmers' informal research are: technical and organizational innovations that use scarce resources efficiently; signposts for new research that scientists in formal research and development systems might start to work on; and methods for conducting cost-effective research and classifying knowledge, with the farmer as principal researcher.

Main Types of Farmer Participatory Research

Research conducted on farms can be classified according to the level of control and management exercised by farmers and researchers. This classification includes four categories (Figure 1).

researcher-managed on-farm trials

consultative researcher-managed on-farm trials

collaborative farmer-researcher participatory research

farmer managed participatory research

The first two types are not examples of farmer participatory research, but simply conventional on-farm research. The last two types are forms of farmer participatory research and, as such, reflect the characteristics and are based on the assumptions presented earlier in this paper. Between these poles, there exists a range of possibilities, combining farmer and researcher participating in the control and management of the research process. The four approaches are presented below to differentiate non-participatory on-farm trials (1 and 2) from genuine farmer participatory research (3 and 4).

Figure 1. Types of On-farm Research

Researcher-Managed On-Farm Trials

Researchers work in farmers' fields to develop technology for farmers or to test and validate research findings obtained in the research station. They generally design, implement and evaluate the technology in the farmers' fields, or they define the research agenda and design trials which farmers are allowed to implement under their supervision. The experimental designs used in this approach are similar to those used in research stations. The relationship between the researcher and farmer is hierarchical. Researchers are the main decision-makers, setting the research agenda and designing and implementing trials. Researchers identify the problem upon which research is based.

Participation by farmers in conventional on-farm trials is minimal. Occasionally, scientists may also allow farmers to comment on the outcomes of experiments. The farmers often rent their land to researchers conducting experiments, or are paid for their labor. But farmers do not define the research agenda or participate in decision-making. Because scientists bring technology from the experimental station to the farm for testing and validation, farmers are not involved in technology generation. Ultimately, they become the passive recipients of researchers' recommendations.

Consultative Researcher-Managed On-Farm Trials

Farmers are consulted by researchers about their needs, problems, goals and preferences. They are also asked about their agricultural practices and knowledge of the local environment, resource availability, and so on. Researchers may also ask farmers for feedback on their perceptions of the new technology under study.

Although farmers may be consulted at the beginning of the research process, such consultation is aimed primarily at assisting researchers in interpreting farmers' circumstances, problems, or needs, and to arrive at experimental designs for trials which often will not include farmer participation in the initial stages of on-farm testing (Ashby, 1987). Technologies are developed for farmers based on the researchers' understanding of their farming systems.

Some researchers may allow farmers limited participation in the testing, validation and evaluation of the new technology developed at the experimental station. Experiments are conducted to answer the researcher's scientific concerns as related to farm-level conditions. Trials are designed to acquire accurate information about the response of technologies in the farmer's fields, but do not incorporate the farmer's criteria on testing or evaluation. This type of on-farm trial is the last step of research conducted at the experimental station.

Compared to the conventional on-farm trial conducted solely by scientists, this approach involves more interaction between researchers and farmers. However, researchers continue to control the research process and develop technology. The farmer's minimal involvement does not include decisions regarding the research agenda, trial implementation, or evaluation criteria. Because of this, the research is consistent with the transfer-of-technology model, and therefore likely to result in agricultural practices and technologies that fail to meet farmers' needs.

Collaborative Farmer-Researcher Participatory Research

Farmers and researchers work together in this approach on problem definition, design, management and implementation of trials, and evaluation. In the early phases of the process, scientists and farmers discuss potential areas for collaborative research and choose decision-making and evaluation criteria. By combining informal research by farmers with formal on-farm testing procedures, indigenous knowledge and science-based knowledge are mixed to meet farmers' needs. Ideally, a collaborative relationship means balanced participation in and control over the research process in order to achieve the objectives of both farmers and scientists.

Farmer-Managed Participatory Research

Farmers are the main actors and decision-makers in this approach, developing technology through a process that includes problem definition, trial design, the implementation of experiments, and the evaluation of results.

In the diagnostic phase, farmers identify the problems and needs they want to address. In the planning and design phase, they choose the most important problem, identify potential solutions, design prototype technology, and decide how to test it. In the experimentation phase, they test and evaluate the technology. Finally, in the adaptation and validation phase, farmers further test the technology developed prior to dissemination (Ashby, 1991).

The experimental capacity and indigenous knowledge of farmers are used to the maximum in this approach. The scientist's role is to assure that the community's local experimental capacity is fully utilized and to link farmers to information and resources for which the community has expressed a need but which are unavailable at the local level.

Conclusion

Experimentation by farmers cannot entirely replace conventional scientific research and conventional scientific research cannot replace farmers' on-farm research. There is a need for an approach that favors a "symbiotic relationship" between the two. The result is the incorporation of the most important and valuable aspects of each into a new system which will both benefit the small resource-poor farmer and contribute to the scientific knowledge base.

References

Ashby, J.A. 1987. The Effects of Different Types of Farmer Participation in the Management of On-Farm Trials. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 25: 235-252.

Ashby, J.A., C.A. Quiros and Y.M. Rivera. 1987. Farmer Participation in On-Farm Varietal Trials. Discussion Paper No. 22. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network. Overseas Development Institute (ODI): UK. 30pp.

Ashby, J.A. 1991. Small Farmers' Participation in the Design of Technologies. In: Altieri, M.A. and S.B. Hecht (eds). Agroecology and Small Farm Development. CRC Press: Florida. pp 245-253.

Byerlee, D., L. Harrington and D.L. Winkelmann. 1982. Farming Systems Research: Issues in Research Strategy and Technology Design. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64, 5: 897-904.

Chambers, R. and B.P. Ghildyal. 1985. Agricultural Research for Resource-Poor Farmers: The Farmer-First-and-Last-Model. Discussion Paper No. 203. Institute of Development Studies. University of Sussex: Brighton, England. Also in Agricultural Administration, 20: 1-30.

Chambers, R., A. Pacey and L. Thrupp. 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications: London.

Farrington, J. and A. Martin. 1987. Farmer Participatory Research: A Review of Concepts and Practices. Discussion Paper No. 19. Agricultural Administration Network, Overseas Development Institute: UK. 88pp.

Harwood, R.R. 1979. Research in Small Farm Development. In: Harwood, R.R. Small Farm Development. Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado. pp 32-41.

Haverkort, B., W. Hiemstra, C. Reijntjes and S. Essers. 1988. Strengthening Farmers' Capacity for Technology Development. ILEIA Newsletter. Issue on Participative Technology Development, 4, 3: 3-7.

Howes, M. and R. Chambers. 1979. Indigenous Technical Knowledge: Analysis, Implications and Issues. IDS Bulletin, 10, 2: 5-11.

McCorkle, C. 1989. Toward a Knowledge of Local Knowledge and its Importance for Agricultural RD&E (Agricultural Research, Development and Extension). Agriculture and Human Values, Summer, 4-12.

Rhoades, R.E. 1987. Farmers and Experimentation. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network. Discussion Paper No. 21. Overseas Development Unit (ODI): London, UK. Paper presented at the Workshop on Farmers and Agricultural Research: Complementary Methods, 27-31 July 1987. IDS, University of Sussex, Brighton, England as "The Role of Farmers in the Creation and Continuing Development of Agri-Technology and Systems".

Tan, J.K. 1985. Some Notes on Participatory Technology Development. IFDA Dossier, 45: 12-18.

Contributed by:
Daniel Selener
Email: chelibertango@yahoo.com

2
Prototypical Approaches to Innovation Development

A review of literature on innovation development in the context of natural resource management shows that different approaches may be used in coming up with a framework to analyze participatory approaches. Three prototypical approaches are discussed in this paper. In practice, however, precise boundaries cannot be drawn among them. They constitute prototypes or umbrella terms on a continuum rather than clear-cut procedures. These are the following:

Transfer of technology

Farmer first

Participatory learning and action research

Transfer of Technology

This linear and mainly technology-driven model reflects the modernistic development perspective of the 1960s and is based on the positivist science paradigm. It includes three main actors:

formal researchers - responsible for providing scientifically valid research results

extensionists - 'transfer' the message to:

farmers or other clients - the adopters or rejecters of innovations developed by others

An example of the Transfer of Technology is the green revolution of the 1970s. The green revolution packages were suitable mainly to areas of high natural potential and uniform and controllable growing conditions. This model, aiming at a widespread adoption of technologies, is likely to be successful in relatively homogenous, low-risk, natural and social environments, where farmers live under similar conditions, perceive the same kinds of challenges and share a common set of beliefs and values.

For small farmers in highly variable areas with low levels of control of growing conditions, success was very limited. Adapting the environment to fit the technology (e.g., through fertilizer application) is economically and socially not feasible in this context. As a response, farming systems research emerged. More emphasis was laid on (contractual and consultative) farmer participation to better understand their complex situation and the inter-dependencies among elements of farming systems in order to develop adapted technologies (Biggs, 1989; Farrington and Martin, 1987; Rhoades and Booth, 1982).

Today, the transfer of technology model is often viewed as the antithesis of participatory research. However, this is often not the case. In fact, much of the present participatory practice can still be classified as an expansion of the transfer of technology model because information is obtained from farmers and incorporated into scientific research. Participatory methods are used to better meet farmers' needs and to adapt technologies to site-specific circumstances at a relatively late stage of the research process.

Farmer First

By the mid-1980s, people were re-thinking the transfer of technology model. The emphasis was on the farmer. There are different types of approaches summarized under 'Farmers First':

Farmer-back-to-Farmer

Farmer First and Last

Farmer Participatory Research

Participatory Technology Development

Farmers became part of the process of generating, testing and evaluating technologies that promoted sustainable agricultural production. The main outcome expected from these approaches is the generation and adoption of new, appropriate technologies by small, resource-poor farmers to aid in solving production constraints in order to increase farm productivity and income (Selener, 1997).

The positivist paradigm is still prevalent in these approaches. Local knowledge is often viewed as a uniform 'stock', which is available for assimilation and incorporation. The role of researchers is to collect information, document rural people's knowledge, provide technology options, plan and manage research interventions. Farmers mainly act as respondents and are involved in planning and on-farm experimentation (Hagmann, 1999). Often, formal research methods and controlled comparison are used.

In the "learning selection approach" to technological change, different stakeholders experiment with a new technology (researchers' "best bet") and carry out the evolutionary roles of novelty generation, selection, and promulgation, i.e., learning selection is seen as analogous to natural selection in Darwinian evolution (Douthwaite, 2002). The innovation process is regarded as a complex, adaptive, multi-agent system.

Participatory Learning and Action Research

In participatory learning and action research, knowledge is developed through critical reflection and experiential learning. These have several advantages.

Practical knowledge and solutions can be developed which are directly useful to practitioners and people in the development process.

By directly influencing the construction process of social reality, there is an increased probability that behavioral change and impact can be achieved.

The people's capacity for experimentation and adaptive management can be developed.

Scientific knowledge can be generated concerning action-reaction-links and factors that influence processes of change in a real life context.

Learning and action research can be considered as being an integrated process of action (development), education and research, or as Albrecht (1992), puts it, "action research entails the integration of research functions as a continuing part of a development program."

In participatory learning and action research, scientists are no longer observers or external actors; they now help people at different levels of social aggregation to learn and enhance their capacity for adaptive management. The approach favors farmer experimentation as well as platforms for negotiation and action learning at community level and with service providers (Hagmann et al., 2002).

Participatory monitoring and evaluation is an important instrument to integrate participatory research functions as a continuing part of the social or socio-technical development effort, and to investigate more systematically 'how' and 'why' certain changes are, or are not, taking place (Probst, 2002).

Action learning approaches operate in a constructivist perspective, where informal experimentation and indigenous knowledge are put on a more equal footing with scientific knowledge. They draw from traditions in the applied social sciences, pedagogy, organizational development, and community development. According to Kurt Lewin (1946), complex systems can only be explored through action within the system, because a system's reaction to changes reveals its characteristics ('If you want to know how things really work, just try to change them'), i.e., the really relevant issues frequently only come up during the process of action, and would be missed through rigid planning (Hagmann et al., 2002).

The table below gives an overview of three prototypical approaches to innovation, development and their respective attributes.

Most of the current NRM research initiatives focus on the generation and provision of technologies, assume a functioning linear research-development continuum, use mostly consultative forms of participation, and consider participatory research as a tool for applied and adaptive research. Therefore, they principally fall into the categories of 'transfer of technology' and 'farmers first' approaches. Longer-term participatory learning and action research approaches are only beginning to be chosen by international agricultural research centers (IARCs) as they require a different kind of professionalism and challenge the mandate, i.e., they are considered to fall under the sphere of development rather than research. The potential of participatory learning and action research for strategic research and approach development is gradually recognized, particularly since the research system (i.e., 'research on research') has become a focus in institutional research.

Another frequently discussed issue is the question of client-orientation in international agricultural research. Presently, public sector agricultural research is mainly externally initiated, discipline-led and supply-driven, no matter which of the above-mentioned approaches is chosen. Research institutions write proposals according to their strengths and preferences, they manage the funds obtained for development-oriented research, and are accountable and report to donors. Local "clients" in turn have little power and influence on the research agenda. Currently, new financial mechanisms are under discussion to increase the demand-orientation and accomplish more market-led client-provider relationships.

A new concept would for example be that local organizations who have appropriate communication channels to institutions or enterprises and who have control over own and/or donated resources (or competitive funds, vouchers, etc.), initiate contracts with providers of research services to overcome specific constraints. They would act as clients who commission external service providers, and "buy-in" research services they need. Each of the three prototypical approaches to innovation development could be chosen under such market-led conditions, i.e., local organizations could demand either the development of a technology or the facilitation of a learning and action research process. This model would put local people in a position of greatest power, as they can demand accountability, whereas external actors are responding to their requests.

What frequently is ignored in the discussion of such financial agreements, is that some preconditions need to be in place for their functioning, such as a certain level of local organizational and management capacity, the ability to identify and articulate broad based demands, etc. Otherwise, such efforts would be highly susceptible to corruption by local elites, or walk in the trap of "local people demanding more of the same".

Participatory learning and action research approaches by nature seek to strengthen the capacities of poor farmers in marginal areas to ultimately allow the application of more market-led and demand-oriented approaches.

References

Biggs, S. 1989. Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper. The Hague: ISNAR. pp. 3-37.

Douthwaite, B. 2002. Enabling Innovation. A Practical Guide to Understanding and Fostering Technological Change. New York and London: Zed Books.

Farrington, J. and N. Martin. 1987. Farmer Participatory Research: A Review of Concepts and Practices. ODI Discussion Papers, No. 19. London: ODI.

Hagmann, J. 1999. Learning Together for Change. Facilitating Innovation in Natural Resource Management Through Learning Process Approaches in Rural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe. Kommunikation und Beratung No. 29. Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Verlag.

Hagmann, J., E. Chuma, K. Murwira, M. Connolly and P. Ficarelli. 2002. Success Factors in Integrated Natural Resource Management R & D - Lessons from Practice. Conservation Ecology, No. 5(2), 29. Online documents at URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art29[31.10.2002]

Probst, K. 2002. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Promising Concept in Participatory Research? Lessons from Two Case Studies in Honduras. Kommunikation und Beratung No. 49. Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Verlag.

Selener, D. 1997. Participatory Action Research and Social Change. Cornell Participatory Action Research Network. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.

Contributed by:
Kirsten Probst and Jürgen Hagmann
with inputs from
Maria Fernandez and Jacqueline A. Ashby
Email: JHagmann@aol.com

3
Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Research and Extension

The emergence of participation as an issue to be addressed within extension approaches was slower in coming to the forefront, as compared to the attention participation received within research systems. One key element of participation is an emphasis on developing the capacity of local people as an end in itself, as opposed to the purely mechanistic emphasis of participation as a means within the technology development flow that has often characterized research and extension programs.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, increasingly more field-based experiences emerged creating more space for methodological and institutional innovations for agricultural research and extension. Within these participatory approaches - as they became commonly known - a special emphasis was placed upon participation of local people and their communities, especially working with and through groups; and building upon the traditional or indigenous knowledge that they held (Chambers et al., 1989; Waters-Bayer, 1989; Haverkort et al., 1991). Table 1 situates farmer participation in a comparative context of previous and existing research-extension paradigms.

Farmer Participation in Agricultural Research

The rise of farmer participatory research (FPR) was a deliberate effort among agricultural professionals to combine farmers' indigenous traditional knowledge (ITK) with the more widely recognized expertise of the agricultural research community. The approach aimed to distinguish itself from farming systems research (FSR) in its more deliberate attempt to actively involve farmers in setting the research agenda, implementing trials and analyzing findings and results (Farrington and Martin, 1988). FPR has gone beyond the on-farm trials which became the standard of FSR, and actually called for farmers to design, monitor and evaluate experiments - in collaboration with researchers - carried out in their own fields (Okali et al., 1994). Some have argued that while FPR approaches can increase participation among farmers, as a research methodology, it has not brought about impact and output (Bentley, 1994), or may require more than short-term technology development efforts (Humphries et al., 2000). Research from Africa supports this argument by showing that less than 15% of "experiments led by farmers" resulted in the definition of new knowledge or the development of new technologies (i.e., were not already in existence elsewhere). The study concluded that farmers' experiments are in fact more "complementary" than "synergistic" to formal agricultural research efforts, and that farmers' experiments are more closely linked to agricultural extension activities rather than to agricultural research accomplishments (Sumberg and Okali, 1997).

Some of the trends like the recognition of the importance of farmers' ITK, strengthening of farmers' participation, the emergence of non-government organizations (NGOs) within the agricultural technology development sphere -allowed for the development of one of the more articulate models deriving from the FPR experiences - the multiple source of innovation model (Biggs, 1989). The model states that agricultural innovation (and the systems that carry those innovations between and among farmers) can derive from several sources, rather than from a single formal source (i.e., traditional research institutions). Evidence from Ecuador, Niger and other countries supports the multiple source of innovation model by providing well-documented examples of innovations emerging from farmers' associations and NGOs, and argues that public sector research/extension institutions are neither the only nor the main agents of agricultural technology adaptation and dissemination (McCorkle et al., 1988; Bebbington, 1989; Engel, 1990). The multiple source of innovation model has allowed for greater operational space for NGOs within the agricultural technology development system, as it has provided greater legitimacy to their contribution (Farrington and Amanor, 1991).

Farmer Participation in Agricultural Extension

Despite the articulate and increasingly large body of literature on participatory research and extension approaches, much of the work that has been conducted under the farmer-first and FPR frameworks focuses mainly on the research dimension of agricultural technology development and dissemination approaches. Concrete examples of the application of the underlying principles of participation, indigenous knowledge, and the users' (or farmers') perspective to the extension function and a discussion of the implications of these considerations to agricultural extension systems have been somewhat limited.

Röling (1995) outlines the facilitation model of extension that has emerged in recent years. The model also identifies the need to support farmer networking to reinforce individual learning, centered within a process which is facilitated by highly trained outsiders (agricultural professionals - both researchers and extension workers), thus comprising an agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS). While the move from a linear transfer-of-technology extension model to the facilitation model is a difficult one, it is a trend which is gaining acceptance within donor and public sector institutions, but it also begs the need for further investigation into the characteristics of the approach (Röling and van de Fliert, 1994).

Engel (1991) presents a (general) typology of participation in extension which attempts to qualify levels of intensity of farmer participation as:

participation in extension meetings or activities

participatory diagnoses (e.g., participatory rural appraisal, problem-census, etc.)

participation through organization

Using this typology, much of what is called farmer participation in extension falls under the first two levels. However, for extension to become more farmer-led, a greater emphasis must be placed on the third - more substantive - type of farmer participation. One example of this third type of farmer participation in extension can be noted in the experience of the Uganda National Farmer's Association that has established a "demand-driven, cost-recovery" extension system as an alternative to public sector extension in a number of districts (Carney, 1998).

Farmer participation in extension will require putting farmers first by placing real ownership and accountability of public extension organizations into the hands of the clients - the farmers, and their communities and organizations. Antholt (1994) suggests that this might be accomplished by developing mechanisms for improving public support (i.e., cost-sharing, local taxes, etc.) that would provide resources to farmers and their organizations, and allow them to choose the types of extension services that are most relevant to their needs. However, he goes on to say that this will also require farmers to assume more responsibility to determine (and pay for) extension services and programs. User-centered approaches to extension - while increasingly fashionable - are not favored by agricultural extension agencies (particularly the public sector) because of the resulting changes in their power relations with farmers (Tendler, 1993).

Drawing upon extension practice and literature, key elements of agricultural extension approaches can be identified and formulated into a comparative typology for three different types of extension approaches (Table 2). The first two columns represent two distinct extension approaches - extensionist-centered and farmer-led approaches. Using key elements of any extension approach, the table attempts to differentiate between these two distinct approaches, recognizing that these are only models and that no single extension program may neatly fit into either model. The third column represents an emerging typology of extension approach which argues for a synthesis of these two conventional models into the form of an "accompaniment" model for participatory agricultural extension – a "middle path" between the more traditional extensionist-centered approaches and the more dynamic farmer-led approaches.

This "accompaniment model" suggests that farmer-led extension approaches cannot solely focus on the farmer promoters involved in the process, as there is, indeed, a critical role for professional extension workers to "accompany" the efforts and to support the achievements of farmer promoters. Experience has shown that it is difficult to achieve quality work from farmer promoters if they are not supported by well-trained professional extension workers sensitive to the new attitudes required of them. However, the professional extension workers must also be committed to and enthusiastic about the changes brought about by farmer-led extension approaches, especially in terms of the change in roles expected of them as professionals, and the communication/capacity-building skills that are required of them in order to work effectively with farmer promoters.

Before we leave the discussion on participatory approaches to agricultural research and extension, a word of caution is required. Many agricultural professionals, including some of the most vocal proponents in favor of participatory approaches, are calling for a re-examination of the current fad in the promotion of these approaches and highlighting the need to be more objective in the analysis of these approaches (Biggs, 1995; Cooke and Kothari, 2002). In order to more accurately measure their effectiveness and impact, Biggs (1995) specifically underlines the importance of developing a framework for analysis and evaluation of participatory technology development (PTD) (and related) experiences - a recommendation that has been strongly seconded by others (Oakley, 1995).

References

Antholt, C. 1994. Getting Ready for the Twenty-First Century: Technical Change and Institutional Modernisation in Agriculture. World Bank Technical Paper No. 217. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Bebbington, A. 1989. Institutional Options and Multiple Sources of Agricultural Innovation: Evidence from an Ecuadorian Case Study. Overseas Development Institute. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper No. 11.

Bentley, J. 1994. Facts, Fantasies and Failures of Farmer Participatory Research. Agriculture and Human Values Vol. 11, No. 243, pp. 140-150.

Biggs, S. 1989. A Multiple Source of Innovation Model of Agricultural Research and Technology Promotion. Overseas Development Institute. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper No. 6.

Biggs, S. 1995. Participatory Technology Development: Reflections on Current Advocacy and Past Technology Development. Paper for The Limits of Participation Workshop, 23 March 1995. Intermediate Technology Development Group, London.

Carney, D. 1998. Changing Public and Private Roles in Agricultural Service Provision. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Chambers, R., A. Pacey and L.A. Thrupp (eds.). 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Cooke, B. and U. Kothari (eds.). 2002. Participation: The New Tyranny. London: Zed Books.

Engel, P. 1990. Two Ears, One Mouth... Participatory Extension or Why People Have Two Ears and Only One Mouth. AT Source Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 2-5.

Engel, P. 1991. Farmers' Participation and Extension. In: Haverkort, B., J. van der Kamp and A. Waters-Bayer (eds.). Joining Farmers' Experiments: Experiences in Participatory Technology Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Farrington, J. and K. Amanor. 1991. NGOs and Agricultural Technology Development. In: Rivera, W. and D. Gustafson (eds.). Agricultural Extension: Worldwide Institutional Evolution and Forces for Change. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Farrington, J. and A. Martin. 1988. Farmer Participation in Agricultural Research: A Review of Concepts and Practices. Agricultural Administration Unit, Occasional Paper No. 9. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Haverkort, B., J. van der Kamp and A. Waters-Bayer (eds.). 1991. Joining Farmers' Experiments: Experiences in Participatory Technology Development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Humphries, S., J. Gonzalez, J. Jimenez and F. Sierra. 2000. Searching for Sustainable Land Use Practice in Honduras: Lessons from a Programme of Participatory Research with Hillside Farmers. Overseas Development Institute. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 104. July.

McCorkle, C., R. Brandstetter and G. McClure. 1988. A Case Study on Farmer Innovations and Communication in Niger. Communication for Technology Transfer in Africa. Washington, DC: Academy for Educational Development.

Oakley, P. 1995. People's Participation in Development Projects. Occasional Paper Series, No. 7. Oxford: INTRAC. July.

Okali, C., J. Sumberg and J. Farrington. 1994. Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric or Reality. London: Intermediate Technology Publications (for ODI).

Röling, N. 1995. What to Think of Extension?: A Comparison of Three Models of Extension Practice. Article for Francophone Issue of the AERDD Bulletin, Edited by Nouridin Salamna, ICRA, Montpellier Office. December.

Röling, N. and E. van de Fliert. 1994. Transforming Extension for Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of Integrated Pest Management in Rice in Indonesia. Agriculture and Human Values Vol., 11 No. 2/3, pp. 96-108.

Sumberg, J. and C. Okali. 1997. Farmer's Experiments: Creating Local Knowledge. London: Lynne Rienner.

Tendler, J. 1993. Tales of Dissemination in Small-Farm Agriculture: Lessons for Institution Builders. World Development Vol. 21, No. 10, pp. 1567-1582.

Waters-Bayer, A. 1989. Participatory Technology Development in Ecologically-Oriented Agriculture: Some Approaches and Tools. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper No. 7, London: Overseas Development Institute.

Contributed by:
Scott Killough
Email: Scott.Killough@iirr.org

4
The Quality of Participation: Critical Reflections on Decision Making, Context and Goals

Contributing to rural transformations and sustainable natural resource management through participatory action research requires researchers to reflect on the research process. The challenge is to critically assess the kind(s) of participation that are appropriate to the different stages of the research cycle. Another way to phrase this is to ask what is good practice in participatory research and development. There are three complementary entry points for investigating this question: the decision making process, the research context, and the aims of participation.

The Decision Making Process: Types of Participation

Participatory research can take a variety of different forms in terms of who participates, how and when, and who decides about what, how and when. In any given participatory research activity, usually more than one form is employed, either consciously or unconsciously. Consultative forms of participation mean that researchers only consult with others (e.g., farmers) in order to make decisions about (community) needs and to design research interventions. Collegial forms imply the active involvement and equal decision making power of others in conducting the whole research process (from identification of the research problem or opportunity to final assessment), such as the involvement of communities and user groups in decision making about new management rules and regulations (e.g., an irrigation system or a community forest) or multi-stakeholder groups/associations developing management policies covering various scales of resource management (e.g., a watershed). A useful typology is the following (adapted from Probst et al., 2003, building on a classification presented by Biggs, 1989):

Contractual Participation
One social actor has sole decision-making power over most of the decisions taken in a research process, and can be considered the "owner" of it. Others participate in activities defined by this social actor in the sense of being formally or informally "contracted" to provide services and support.

Consultative Participation
Most of the key decisions are made by one social actor, but emphasis is put on consultation and gathering information from others, especially for identifying constraints and opportunities, priority setting and/or evaluation.

Collaborative Participation
Different actors collaborate and are put on a more equal footing, emphasizing linkage through an exchange of knowledge, different contributions and a sharing of decision-making power during the innovation process.

Collegiate Participation
Different actors work together as colleagues or partners. "Ownership" and responsibility are equally distributed among the partners, and decisions are made by agreement or consensus among all actors.

It is useful to differentiate between types of participation in order to understand how this influences research results. Community participation in research can be differentiated according to the level of community control over the process (who sets the agenda), when (at what stage of the research) local people participate, and the level of representation and differentiation of different stakeholders and community groups in the process. Table 1 is a useful tool to reflect on these questions in any given project or program.

Source: Adapted from McAllister and Vernooy, 1999

There is no right or wrong amount of participation. However, it is always important to be honest and open to the community about the purposes of the research. If the goal of the research is social transformation, it is important to give local people as much control as possible over the research process.

The Social Construction of Knowledge

Taking part in a research process is about generating new knowledge and skills, changing attitudes, and improving practice. It is therefore useful to reflect on the nature of knowledge generation processes. Knowledge exists in different forms, which are equally valuable and legitimate. A combination local or indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge is important to improve natural resource management decisions at the local level or at higher levels, such as a watershed.

Different groups in the community and different stakeholders have different knowledge about natural resources and may have different priorities, and there are many explanations or folk theories for a given body of facts. It is therefore very important to speak with different people in the community (women, men, poor, landless, different ethnic and social status, young and old) in order to understand their different perspectives. It is also important to be conscious that information and knowledge are not value-free, and to be aware that the selective choice of information or knowledge may empower some people and on the other hand, displace others. In other words, knowledge is always socially constructed and often disputed (Long and Long, 1992).

The knowledge and information generated from participatory action research activities are constructed by the socio-economic and political context in which the research takes place (local culture and society, resource issues, and rights); by the nature of the research questions asked and research methods used; by the attitudes and abilities of the researchers; and by the research capacity and experiences of the community (McAllister, 1999; McAllister and Vernooy, 1999). Stronger awareness of these different social factors, which can influence the research process, can help researchers better understand the results of their activities.

Socio-Economic and Political Issues in Natural Resource Management

At the community level, natural resources are governed by complex, overlapping, and sometimes conflicting social entitlements and traditional norms, such as private versus common property rights, tree versus land tenure, differential security of tenure and use rights. Social identities, relationships and roles negotiated along lines of gender, kinship, ethnicity, socio-economic status, age, occupation, and so on, can influence access to and use of natural resources. Different stakeholders – within the community and outside – have different values, perceptions and objectives, depending on individual context (how the individual experiences the social and natural environment) and social-cultural identity (McDougall and Braun, 2003).

Representation of community interests and knowledge are often produced in the context of struggles over resources through which different parties defend interests and advance claims. Power differences between different community groups and between the community and outside groups influence interaction and negotiation between them and can influence whose interests are represented in the research. Participatory processes provide an opportunity for less-powerful groups to contest existing power relations and resource rights, but also may enable more powerful or politically aware groups to assert preferential rights over resources. Here it is important to consider if the government is supportive of participatory processes.

It is often especially important to be aware of the differences in social power and resource rights between men and women, that is, to specifically incorporate gender analysis into the research process. Gender encompasses the socially constructed roles and characteristics assigned to men and women in a specific culture).

Community Perceptions of the Research

Previous experience of local people with research and development projects, as well as perceptions of potential benefits can influence community motivation to participate in new research activities, as well as bias their responses.

Methodologies for encouraging community participation can influence the information and priorities which result and the decisions which are made, because of who is present and because of how freely different individuals and groups are able to express their interests.

Local people may be inhibited to let researchers know what they truly think, may give "correct" or "expected" responses, or may present needs, which they feel fit the agenda of the researchers. Their responses may be based on their perceptions of what they can gain or lose by providing certain information, as well as suspicions about how the results will be used. Research activities may be perceived as both foreign and highly formal by local people, especially when more powerful stakeholders are present.

Local involvement is often time-consuming, and takes people away from their normal livelihood activities. Sometimes, individuals who have important perspectives on the project are not able to participate in participatory group activities because they are busy with making their living. This is often especially true for women. It is important to recognize the value of local people's time, and to design research activities so that they are most convenient for local people. It may also be necessary to specifically seek out the perspectives of the very poor who may not be able to spare time to participate in organized activities (go to the people, instead of have the people come to the researchers, for example – interview women in the fields where they farm), so that their important perspectives are included in research decisions.

Capacity of the Community and of the Researchers

Researcher's skills and experience with community facilitation, understanding of social and gender dimensions of research, and capacity for adaptability and flexibility all influence how research will actually be done. At the same time, the capacity of the community in terms of level of education and skills, level of organization, forms of natural resource management, approaches for managing conflict and making collective decision/taking collective action and past project experiences will have an impact as well. Other aspects to consider, include:

What are the motivations and underlying values for becoming involved, of the community, the researchers, and the donor agencies, which support the research?

What is the researcher and research institution's commitment to participation? Is there a commitment and flexibility to allowing the community to redirect the process? What are the attitudes and values regarding local knowledge and local people?

Why are the community and subgroups, and possibly other stakeholders motivated to participate in process? Are local people aware of the problems the research is directed towards? Are local people committed to addressing these problems?

Does the local culture support participation in decision making? What are the local values of hierarchy, respect, and of equity? What are the differing interests in negotiating access to resources or power?

The Research Process: Principles of Good Practice

A third way to address the quality of participation is to ask how it contributes to the central goals of participatory research for natural resource management: positive local impacts of research (rural transformations, empowerment); and, the generation of valid, trustworthy, and relevant research findings. The latter implies that these findings may be generalized, i.e., that they contribute to learning that can be applied in some way to other areas beyond the research site.

Based on a comprehensive review of (participatory research for) natural resource management case studies, five principles of good practice and selected related indicators have been put forward (Vernooy and McDougall, 2003):

1. The research reflects a clear and coherent common agenda (or set of priorities) among stakeholders and it contributes to partnership building.

The agenda has been set collaboratively and transparently.

The design allows space for meaningful participation of local stakeholders.

Partnerhsips have been created or strengthened through dialogue, joint actions and mutual benefits.

2. The research addresses and integrates the complexities and dynamics of change in human and natural resource systems and processes, including local understanding of these.

The analysis gives equal attention to both the inherent site characteristics and to the (impacts of) innovative management practices.

The analysis balances and integrates natural/biophysical resource dynamics with human/social changes and innovations.

The research uses an iterative cycle of inquiry and learning.

3. The research applies the 'triangulation principle' (i.e., multiple sources of information and methods), and links together various knowledge worlds.

The research links the local, traditional and scientific knowledge worlds.

The research uses a diversity of tools and methods.

Information generation is based on multiple sources.

Dissemination occurs throughout the whole process.

4. The research contributes to concerted planning for the future and social change.

The research process allows for options and scenario development.

The research has a sustainability focus and an exit strategy built in from the outset.

The research incorporates a scaling up or extrapolation strategy, including an analysis of the uptake environment.

5. The research process is based in iterative learning and feedback loops and there is a two-way sharing of information.

The research includes regular exchange and reflection involving key stakeholders.

The research has regular monitoring events.

Outcomes of monitoring events are translated into revised actions.

These principles and related indicators make up a framework that represents a potential tool for learning for researchers enabling the application of increasingly inclusive or integrative perspectives to participatory research practice. It also serves as a hypothesis-generating tool to guide future research design and planning.

A Challenge

Combining the three entry points presented here to reflect on and assess the quality of participation is a challenge. However, facing up to this challenge is at the heart of a commitment to participatory research and development.

References

Biggs, S. 1989. Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper. The Hague: ISNAR.

Long, N. and A. Long (eds). 1992. Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. Routledge, London, UK and New York, USA.

McAllister, K. 1999. Understanding Participation: Monitoring and Evaluation Process, Outputs and Outcomes. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Research Paper.

McAllister, K. and R. Vernooy. 1999. Action and Reflection: A Guide for Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Research. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

McDougall, C. and A. Braun. 2003. Navigating Complexity, Diversity and Dynamism: Reflections on Research for Natural Resource Management. In: Pound, B. et al. (eds). Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. London, UK: Earthscan, and Ottawa, Canada: IDRC, pp. 20-47.

Probst, K. and J. Hagmann with contributions from Fernandez, M. and J. A. Ashby. 2003. Understanding Participatory Research in the Context of Natural Resource Management: Paradigms, Approaches and Typologies. ODI-AGREN Network Paper No. 130.

Vernooy, R. and C. McDougall. 2003. Principles for Good Practice in Participatory Research: Reflecting on Lessons from the Field. In: Pound, B. et al. (eds). Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation. London, UK: Earthscan and Ottawa, Canada: IDRC, pp. 113-141.

Contributed by:
Ronnie Vernooy
Email: rvernooy@idrc.ca

5
An Agroecological Basis for Natural Resource Management Among Poor Farmers in Fragile Lands

Throughout the developing world, resource-poor farmers (about 1.4 billion people) located in risk-prone, marginal environments, remain untouched by modern agricultural technology. For the most part, resource-poor farmers gained very little from the Green Revolution as the new technologies were not scale-neutral. The farmers with the larger and better-endowed lands gained the most, whereas farmers with fewer resources often lost, and income disparities were often accentuated. Although subsequent studies have shown that the spread of high-yielding varieties among small farmers occurred in Green Revolution areas where they had access to irrigation and subsidized agrochemicals, inequities remain.

Clearly, food security in the developing world will need to be increased, especially in the marginal areas where the majority of the poor people are concentrated. In order to benefit the poor more directly, a new Natural Resource Management (NRM) approach must be developed to directly and simultaneously tackle the following objectives:

poverty alleviation

food security and self reliance

ecological management of productive resources

empowerment of rural communities

establishment of supportive policies

The NRM strategy must be applicable under the highly heterogeneous and diverse conditions in which smallholders live, must be environmentally-sustainable and based on the use of local resources and indigenous knowledge (Table 1). The emphasis should be on improving whole farming systems at the field or watershed level rather than the yield of specific commodities. Technological generation should be a demand-driven process, meaning that research priorities should be based on the socio-economic needs and environmental circumstances of resource-poor farmers.

To be of benefit to the rural poor, agricultural research and development should operate on the basis of a "bottom-up" approach, using and building upon the resources already available: local people, their knowledge and their natural resources. It must also seriously take into consideration, through participatory approaches, the needs, aspirations and circumstances of smallholders. A relevant NRM strategy requires the use of general agroecological principles and customizing agricultural technologies to local needs and circumstances. Where the conventional technology transfer model breaks down is where new management systems need to be tailored and adapted in a site-specific way to highly variable and diverse farm conditions. Agroecological principles have universal applicability but the technological forms through which those principles become operational depend on the prevailing environmental and socio-economic conditions of the target farmer group.

Building on Traditional Knowledge

A logical starting point in the development of new pro-poor agricultural development approaches are the very systems that traditional farmers have developed and/or inherited throughout centuries. Such complex farming systems, adapted to the local conditions, have helped small farmers to sustainably manage harsh environments and to meet their subsistence needs, without depending on mechanization, chemical fertilizers, pesticides or other technologies of modern agricultural science. Although many of these systems have collapsed or disappeared in many parts of the Third World, the stubborn persistence of millions of hectares under traditional agriculture in the form of raised fields, terraces, polycultures, agroforestry systems, etc., are living proof of a successful indigenous agricultural strategy and comprises a tribute to the creativity of small farmers throughout the developing world.

The ensemble of traditional crop management practices used by many resource-poor farmers represent a rich resource for modern workers seeking to create novel agroecosystems well adapted to the local agroecological and socioeconomic circumstances. Farmers use a diversity of techniques, many of which fit well to local conditions and can lead to the conservation and regeneration of the natural resource base as in the case of indigenous soil and water management practices in Africa. The techniques tend to be knowledge-intensive rather than input-intensive, but clearly not all are effective or applicable, therefore modifications and adaptations may be necessary. The challenge is to maintain the foundations of such modifications grounded on farmers' rationale and knowledge.

Agroecology as a Fundamental Scientific Basis for NRM

Agroecology is a science that provides guidelines to understanding the nature of agroecosystems and the principles by which they function. Agroecology provides the basic ecological principles for how to study, design and manage agroecosystems that are both productive and natural resource-conserving, and that are also culturally-sensitive, socially-just and economically-viable. Instead of focusing on one particular component of the agroecosystem, agroecology emphasizes the interrelatedness of all agroecosystem components and the complex dynamics of ecological processes including all environmental and human elements.

Agroecology takes greater advantage of natural processes and beneficial on-farm interactions in order to reduce off-farm input use and to improve the efficiency of farming systems. Technologies emphasized tend to enhance the functional biodiversity of agroecosystems as well as the conservation of existing on-farm resources. Promoted technologies such as cover crops, green manures, intercropping, agroforestry and crop-livestock mixtures, are multi-functional as their adoption usually means favorable changes in various components of the farming systems at the same time.

Applying Agroecology to Improve the Productivity of Small Farming Systems

Since the early 1980s, hundreds of agroecologically-based projects have been promoted by non-government organizations (NGOs) throughout the developing world, which incorporate elements of both traditional knowledge and modern agricultural science. A variety of projects exist featuring resource-conserving yet highly-productive systems, such as polycultures, agroforestry and the integration of crops and livestock, etc. Such alternative approaches can be described as low-input technologies, but this designation refers to the external inputs required. The amount of labor, skills and management that are required as inputs to make land and other factors of production most productive is quite substantial. So rather than focus on what is not being utilized, it is better to focus on what is most important to increase food output, labor, knowledge and management.

The analysis of dozens of NGO-led agroecological projects show convincingly that agroecological systems are not limited to producing low outputs, as some critics have asserted. Increases in production of 50-100% are fairly common with most alternative production methods. In some of these systems, yields for crops that the poor rely on most- rice, beans, maize, cassava, potatoes, barley - have been increased by several - fold, relying on labor and know-how more than on expensive purchased inputs, and capitalizing on processes of intensification and synergy.

More important than just yields, agroecological interventions raise total production significantly through diversification of farming systems, such as raising fish in rice paddies or growing crops with trees, or adding goats or poultry to household operations. Agroecological approaches increased the stability of production as seen in lower coefficients of variance in crop yield with better soil and water management.

Scaling Up of Agroecological Innovations

Throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America, there are many NGOs involved in promoting agroecological initiatives that have demonstrated a positive impact on the livelihoods of small farming communities in various countries. Success is dependent on the use of a variety of agroecological improvements that in addition to farm diversification favoring a better use of local resources, also emphasize human capital enhancement and community empowerment through training and participatory methods as well as higher access to markets, credit and income- generating activities. Analysts point at the following factors as underlying the success of agroecological improvements:

appropriate technology adapted by farmers' experimentation

social learning and participatory approaches

good linkages between farmers and external agencies, together with the existence of working partnerships between agencies

presence of social capital at local level

In most cases, farmers adopting agroecological models achieved significant levels of food security and natural resource conservation. Given the benefits and advantages of such initiatives, two basic questions emerge: (l) why these benefits have not disseminated more widely; and (2) how to scale-up these initiatives to enable wider impact.

Obviously, technological or ecological intentions are not enough to disseminate agroecology. There are many factors that constrain the implementation of sustainable agriculture initiatives (Table 2).

Major changes must be made in policies, institutions and research and development agendas to make sure that agroecological alternatives are adopted, made equitably and broadly accessible, and multiplied so that their full benefit for sustainable food security can be realized. This requires:

changes in policies to stop subsidies of conventional technologies and to provide support for agroecological approaches

appropriate equitable market opportunities including fair market access and market information to small farmers

security of tenure and progressive decentralization processes

increasing public investments in agroecological-participatory methods

One important factor limiting the spread of agroecological innovations is that for the most part, NGOs promoting such initiatives have not analyzed or systematized the principles that determined the level of success of the local initiatives, nor have been able to validate specific strategies for the scaling-up of such initiatives. A starting point therefore should be the understanding of the agroecological and socio-economic conditions under which alternatives were adopted and implemented at the local level. Such information can shed light on the constraints and opportunities farmers are likely to face at the regional level.

An unexplored approach is to provide additional methodological or technical ingredients to existing cases that have reached a certain level of success. Clearly, in each country there are restraining factors such as lack of markets and lack of appropriate agricultural policies and technologies which limit scaling up. On the other hand, opportunities for scaling up exist, including the systematization and application of approaches that have been successful. Thus, scaling up strategies must capitalize on mechanisms conducive to the spread of knowledge and techniques, such as:

strengthening of organizations through alternative marketing channels

develop methods for rescuing/collecting/evaluating promising agreocological technologies generated by experimenting farmers and making them known to other farmers for wide adoption

training government research and extension agencies on agroecology in order for these organizations to include agroecological principles in their extension programs

develop working linkages between NGOs, government and farmers' organizations for the dissemination of successful agroecological production systems emphasizing biodiversity management and rational use of natural resources

The main expectation of a scaling-up process is that it should expand the geographical coverage of participating institutions and their target agroecological projects while allowing an evaluation of the impact of the strategies employed. A key research goal should be that the methodology used will allow for a comparative analysis of the experiences learned, extracting principles that can be applied in the scaling-up of other existing local initiatives, thus illuminating other development processes.

Outlook and Prospects

There is no question that small farmers located in marginal environments in the developing world can produce much of their needed food. The evidence is conclusive: new approaches and technologies spearheaded by farmers, NGOs and some local governments around the world are already making a sufficient contribution to food security at the household, national and regional levels. A variety of agroecological and participatory approaches in many countries show very positive outcomes even under adverse conditions. Potentials include: raising cereal yields from 50-200%, increasing stability of production through diversification, improving diets and income, contributing to national food security and even to exports and conservation of the natural resource base and agrobiodiversity. Whether the potential and spread of these thousands of local agroecological innovations is realized depends on several factors and actions.

1. Proposed NRM strategies have to deliberately target the poor, and not only aim at increasing production and conserving natural resources, but also create employment, provide access to local inputs and output markets. New strategies must focus on the facilitation of farmer learning to become experts in NRM and at capturing the opportunities in their diverse environments.

2. Researchers and rural development practitioners need to translate general ecological principles and natural resource management concepts into practical advice directly relevant to the needs and circumstances of smallholders. The new pro-poor technological agenda must incorporate agroecological perspectives. A focus on resource conserving technologies, that uses labor efficiently, and on diversified farming systems based on natural ecosystem processes will be essential. This implies a clear understanding of the relationship between biodiversity and agroecosystem function and identifying management practices and designs that will enhance the right kind of biodiversity which in turn will contribute to the maintenance and productivity of agroecosystems.

3. Technological solutions need to be location-specific and information-intensive rather than capital-intensive. The many existing examples of traditional and NGO-led methods of natural resource management provide opportunities to explore the potential of combining local farmer knowledge and skills with those of external agents to develop and/or adapt appropriate farming techniques.

4. Any serious attempt at developing sustainable agricultural technologies must bring to bear local knowledge and skills on the research process. Particular emphasis must be given to involving farmers directly in the formulation of the research agenda and on their active participation in the process of technological innovation and dissemination. The focus should be on strengthening local research and problem-solving capacities. Organizing local people around NRM projects that make effective use of traditional skills and knowledge provides a launching pad for additional learning and organizing, thus improving prospects for community empowerment and self-reliant development.

5. Major changes must be made in policies, institutions and research and development to make sure that agroecological alternatives are adopted, made equitably and broadly accessible and multiplied so that their full benefit for sustainable food security can be realized. Existing subsidies and policy incentives for conventional chemical approaches must be dismantled. Corporate control over the food system must also be challenged. The strengthening of local institutional capacity and widening access of farmers to support services that facilitate use of technologies will be critical. Governments and international public organizations must encourage and support effective partnerships between NGOs, local universities and farmer organizations to assist and empower poor farmers to achieve food security, income generation and natural resource conservation.

6. There is also need to increase rural incomes through interventions other than enhancing yields, such as complementary marketing and processing activities. Therefore equitable market opportunities should also be developed, emphasizing fair trade and other mechanisms that link farmers and consumers more directly.

The ultimate challenge is to increase investment and research in agroecology and scale up projects that have already proven successful to thousands of other farmers. This will generate a meaningful impact on the income, food security, and environmental well-being of the world's population, especially of the millions of poor farmers yet untouched by modern agricultural technology.

References

Altieri, M.A. and C.I. Nicholls. 2004. Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems. Haworth Press, New York.

Altieri, M.A. 2002. Agroecology: The Science of Natural Resource Management for Poor Farmers in Marginal Environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93: 1-24.

Altieri, M.A. and C.I. Nicholls. 2003. Soil Fertility Management and Insect Pests: Harmonizing Soil and Plant Health in Agroecosystems. Soil and Tillage Research 72: 203-211.

Gliessman, S.R. 1998. Agroecology: Ecological Process in Sustainable Agriculture. Ann Arbor Press, Michigan.

Holt-Gimenez, E. 2001. Measuring Farms Agroecological Resistance to Hurricane Mitch. LEISA 17: 18-20.

IIRR. 2000. Going to Scale: Can We Bring More Benefits to More People More Quickly? International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. Cavite, Philippines.

Lappe, F.M., J. Collins and P. Rosset. 1998. World Hunger: Twelve Myths. Grove Press, New York.

Magdoff, F. and H. van Es. 2000. Building Soils for Better Crops. Sustainable Agriculture Network. Beltsville, Maryland. 230p.

Netting, R.McC. 1993. Smallholders, Householders. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Pretty, J. and R. Hine. 2000. Feeding the World with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence. Final Report from "SAFE-World" Research Project. University of Essex, Colchester, England.

Uphoff, N. (ed). 2002. Agroecological Innovations: Increasing Food Production with Participatory Development. Earthscan, London.

Zhu, Y., H. Fen, Y. Wang, Y. Li, J. Chen, L. Hu and C.C. Mundt. 2000. Genetic Diversity and Disease Control in Rice. Nature 406: 718-772.

Contributed by:
Miguel A. Altieri
Email: agroeco3@nature.berkeley.edu

6
Participatory Research and Development in Natural Resource Management: Towards Social and Gender Equity

The management of agriculture and natural resources involves interactive roles of diverse social actors. These actors usually include a diversity of stakeholders including small and large farmers, business entrepreneurs, local government authorities, resource-based user groups, community-based organizations and others. Different individuals and groups of individuals are bringing different perspectives, experiences, knowledge and interests to the management of resources, and to any associated research and development initiatives. They have different and often changing access to and control over, decision-making, and specific knowledge about natural resource management processes. These stakeholders are not homogenous or fixed groups, but differentiated by social categories of gender, class, caste, ethnicity and age.

Power relations between these different actors are greatly influenced by gender, class, ethnicity, and often determine who may have access to a forest and its products, who manages the water resources in the community, who decides which crops are planted and where, etc. Groups such as the poor, socially or politically outcast, and ethnic minorities often are the most marginalized having limited access to decision-making power over how ecosystems and resources are managed. In many countries, women are particularly disadvantaged, with limited ownership and access rights to resources. They often derive little or no benefit. However, sometimes, marginalized groups, including women, may be able to 'negotiate' access to resources from those with more powerful access and decision-making positions. Gender issues are especially pertinent. They shape not only the different roles and responsibilities of women and men, but also the relations between women and men, and how these affect access to and control over natural resources.

'Traditional' research and development activities in the natural resource sector (as in other sectors) have been criticized for not reaching or involving the poor, women and other socially-disadvantaged groups. These groups have not been participants in or beneficiaries from the research and development (R&D) process. There has been increasing emphasis, particularly among gender activists, on how to include women's contributions in planning and decision-making in research and development activities. This continues to be a challenge.

Participatory research and development (PR&D) should aim to facilitate understanding of the way social and gender roles and relations affect social, economic and ecological processes. Key questions are:

How do women and men construct and perceive natural resource management in their communities and region?

How do social and gender relations determine the access, use and management of resources?

How can participatory research facilitate marginalized groups to have more 'space' to manoeuvre or to increase their bargaining position for improved access to and benefits from resources?

Ultimately, a sound understanding of social differences is needed to answer questions of who participates and how, and who benefits and how, from research and development interventions, projects, programs or policies.

How can PR&D Approach Social/Gender Issues in Natural Resource Management?

Participatory research and development activities should facilitate understanding and awareness among researchers and community members alike of social and power relations in the community, and of the differences and inequities regarding the access to, control over, and benefits from natural resources. In participatory approaches to research and development, there is often discussion of working with the 'community'. However, it is important also to remember that the 'community' (or communities) are not homogenous (and 'community' itself is not always a clear concept). Communities are made up of these diverse sets of social actors, governed by social and power relations, and various decision-making processes regarding ecosystem management and resource use. This also holds true for the level of the 'household', which is a unit made up of diverse individuals.

Much research in natural resource management on social, and particularly, gender issues focus on the division of labor and roles and responsibilities. Many participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools, like seasonal calendars and daily activity charts, are used to document and understand the ways in which resources are managed. However, many researchers 'stop' there. It is also important to try to understand the power relations, inequities and decision-making processes between these different groups as integral parts of the complexity of resource management problems and their management. Who makes decisions? When and how? Who benefits, when and how?

Participatory research and development, by definition of the term 'participation', should create a space for involvement of all the different stakeholders involved in using and managing the natural resources. These processes can enable the involvement and active engagement of those more disadvantaged groups who are generally left out of decision-making processes. The term 'participation' evokes a sense of inclusion of each of these diverse sets of actors in the research initiative. However, this is not always the case, and participatory research is not automatically socially-equitable or gender-sensitive. Participation is often determined by rules, norms and perceptions of communities and societies, and these factors may disadvantage women or other social groups (Agarwal, 2001). The potential of these disadvantaged groups to alter them depend on the bargaining power and political relations within the household, community and the state. They also depend on the participatory and facilitative nature of the project or initiative, and the commitment of the researchers to consider and address these issues.

There is a growing body of literature and cases that illustrate how 'participatory' approaches have actually further led to exclusion rather than inclusion (Agarwal, 2001; Cornwall, 2000) because they have not adequately considered, understood, or addressed the power relations and social differentiation within communities. For example, only local elites or authorities in the communities may be involved in R&D initiatives (which could be in part because they are easier to reach), and more poor or marginalized groups may be absent (who are harder to contact and involve). Or, it may be primarily male community members who meet with researchers to discuss the project and activities, and women, or few women, may be involved.

Many projects have made significant attempts to promote women's involvement in NRM projects through participatory approaches. Some may see increasing women's participation as increasing the numbers of women involved in a project, or having a small activity that focuses on women (the 'add women and stir method'). However, this may not actually translate to engaging in meaningful participation. Attempts may be made to 'invite' women to meetings and group discussions and the like and this is considered inclusion. But these may be held at times or places where it is difficult for women to participate for example if they are looking after children, are working in the fields, or they are unable to travel long distances. Or women may be invited to participate in meetings, but are silent, or are given the task of bringing tea and food. Or women may be outspoken, but their contributions are ignored by the male elite, and do not impact on decisions made. Attention must be paid to develop strategies, depending on the local context to integrate and involve women, and other marginalized groups, into the participatory research and development processes in a meaningful way.

Participatory research processes not only facilitate involvement of different social actors, it can also support a process to understand how various interventions and policies may impact various social groups differently. These processes, facilitated through participatory monitoring and evaluation, can help generate knowledge and discussion on how the research process itself may impact on different groups in different ways.

Who Participates? How? Who Decides? Who Benefits?

Simple questions, perhaps, but also very challenging ones and it is difficult to translate these questions into participatory practice. Researchers work in complex socio-cultural, economic and political contexts, often with deeply embedded social relations. How does one try to support processes of research and development that address inequities?

The most critical point is one of awareness. This is really the first step! If researchers, and the communities with whom they are working, are thinking about these questions (who is participating? who 'wins'? who 'loses'?), they are better placed to consider mechanisms and strategies to address this. And, participatory approaches where research and development strategies are designed together with communities enable a more nuanced understanding of these issues, and a transparency that may facilitate change.

Participatory research and development strategies, then, must consider mechanisms to enable meaningful participation by the different stakeholders involved in the research. Given the social, cultural and political diversity in which projects and programs are situated, strategies and approaches will not be a 'blueprint' approach, but rather must be contextualized, developed and adapted by research and development practitioners -- together with the members of the communities in which they are working.

Power relations are not fixed or static, but rather are negotiated over space and time, and depend on various factors in the local context (Cornwall, 2000). Participatory approaches, and particularly emphasis on social and gender analysis, can help to identify those spaces, and also to identify strategies for supporting participatory research and development to build on and strengthen the existing 'spaces for maneuvring' that more marginalized groups may have to access and benefit from natural resources.

Stakeholders who are targeted in NRM research projects as the prime beneficiaries should be the actors and decision-makers in how the research and development initiatives are carried out, and they should have an 'equal' place in the process along with other more powerful actors in the community. While such an equitable footing may be overly ideal, participatory research can aim to move towards 'leveling the playing field' – both in terms of the research and development process itself, and more broadly on the access to, and management of the natural resources. In this way, participatory research can enable disadvantaged groups to develop or strengthen space and negotiation for access to these resources, and ultimately for better livelihoods.

Such an approach can be 'transformative' in addressing social and gender inequities and power relations. Cornwall (2000) adapts Sarah White's (1996) typology of different types of 'participatory approaches' to discuss different 'meanings' of participation for stakeholders, illustrating the potential of a transformative approach (Table 1).

Through meaningful participatory research and development in agriculture and natural resource management, communities, government, donors and the diverse social actors can support a process of transformative approaches where those most marginalized groups are empowered, where they are able to negotiate space to improve their well-being and their livelihoods, while also ensuring the sustainable management of the resource base on which they depend.

References

Agarwal, B. 2001. Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework.

Cornwall, A. 2000. Making a Difference? Gender and Participatory Development. IDS Discussion Paper 378. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.

European Commission: Employment and Social Affairs. 1998. One Hundred Words for Equality: A Glossary of Terms on Equality Between Women and Men. In: Adamo, A. and A. Horvorka Guidelines for Integrating Gender Analysis into Biodiversity Research. Sustainable Use of Biodiversity Program, IDRC.

Lambrou, Y. 2001. A Typology: Participatory Research and Gender Analysis in Natural Resource Management Research. PRGA Working Paper No. 15. CGIAR System Wide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA Program).

Vernooy, R. and E. Fajber. 2005. Making Gender/Social Analysis Work for Natural Resource Management Research: An Umbrella Program for Building Capacity for Researchers. In: International Institute of Rural Reconstruction and InterAction: Commission on the Advancement of Women (eds.). Innovative Practices of Gender Mainstreaming in Asia. (Forthcoming).

White, S. 1996. Depoliticising Development: The Uses and Abuses of Participation. Development in Practice, Vol 6, No. 1: 6-15.

Contributed by:
Elizabeth Fajber
Email: efajber@idrc.org.in

7
Understanding and Getting the Most from Farmers' Local Knowledge

Anthropologists have studied local knowledge since the 1960s, with a set of formal techniques and theory called ethnoscience (for example, Berlin, 1992 and Conklin, 1962, among many others that could be cited). The American anthropologist Eugene Hunn's thoughtful book The Big River describes how Indians along the Columbia River still rely on and know a great deal about wild plants (Hunn, 1990). The Land Against Time by the British anthropologist Paul Sillitoe is an encyclopaedic description of environmental knowledge of the Wola people in Highland New Guinea. Sillitoe shows that for some subjects (e.g., sweetpotato varieties), local knowledge is astoundingly complex. For other topics, local knowledge is fragmentary or incomplete (e.g., pests and diseases and geology) while for others (like soils) local knowledge is deep and detailed, yet bears little resemblance to modern scientific accounts of the same subject (Sillitoe, 1996).

There are four basic types of local knowledge (deep, shallow, missing and mistaken), depending on whether the things in the natural world are important to people or not, and if they are easy or difficult to observe.

Table 1 is a simple way to classify knowledge which we have found useful – it is very important that whenever dealing with farmers on a specific issue that we as scientists are clear in our own minds about which of the boxes we are working in. It is an example of a way to formalize knowledge, which is a basic function of science.

Source: Adapted from Bentley and RodrÍguez, 2001.

What is Ethnoscience?

The gist of ethnoscience is learning local categories for things (insects, plants, diseases, people, etc.) and the meanings of those categories. By understanding how people use their language, we get insights into how they see the world. Hence, folk categories of knowledge are formed by mental concepts attached to word labels.

These concepts are organized into taxonomies, which are usually hierarchical ("kinds of things," e.g., a dog is a kind of animal.) All languages use taxonomies, although there is a fair amount of leeway in how taxonomies are formed, e.g., Quechua may not classify the condor as a bird. Many languages spoken in the Amazon do not have words for "parrot."

This is especially true for insects, which local people often lump into broad categories which include arthropods, worms, even rodents and lizards (Brown, 1984). These are actually minor differences in classification and do not mean that local people misunderstand the way the world is put together.

Brent Berlin (1992) has proposed six levels of folk taxonomies, which are repeated cross-culturally: (1) Kingdom; (2) Life form; (3) Intermediate; (4) Generic; (5) Specific; and (6) Varietal.

Each of these levels has its own linguistic properties. Most striking is that folk taxonomies use generic and specific labels much like Linnaean names: e.g., Honduran farmers use the term hielo negro (where "hielo" is the generic term for most plant disease and negro is the specific name for severe disease). Folk taxonomies make much use of residual categories, e.g., "just a bug" to label left-over, or under-classified organisms. Some folk taxonomies are in the form of partonomies, or sets of categories that are "parts of" another, e.g., parts of an ox plough, or parts of a plant or of an insect.

Sometimes there is a 1:1 correspondence between folk and scientific categories, but often there is not, e.g., the concept of hielo is applied to 30-40 different bean diseases in Honduras. It is a concept of real world phenomena, but does not have any simple analogue in scientific terms (Bentley, 1991). The structure of folk taxonomies is heavily influenced by whether the organisms that are being classified are easily observed and culturally important (see Bentley and RodrÍguez, 2001).

Eliciting frames (for fieldworkers) include a few simple questions like:

What are the kinds of X?

What are the parts of X?

What is the difference between X and Y?

Other Formal Properties of Folk Knowledge

Emic and Etic

These are two concepts borrowed by anthropologists from the linguistic notions of phonemic and phonetic. Roughly, emic is local knowledge and etic is scientific knowledge. An emic concept cannot simply be described in terms of a scientific name. This is especially true of folk entomology. It is a poor definition to say that "cogollero" (fall armyworm) is Spodoptera frugiperda.

A better definition would be:

Emic and etic descriptions can also be given for behavior. For example, when a Honduran campesino uses magical rites to control grass loopers, an entomologist may give one (etic) analysis of why the magical rites seem to control the insects, while an anthropologist may provide another (etic) analysis of how the rite functions. After the rituals, the farmers may think God has answered their prayers and eliminated the pest, while a well-informed entomologist would say that the loopers have pupated.

Meaning and Knowledge

Scientific categories are based on semantic premises of necessary and sufficient conditions: an insect either is or is not a Coleoptera. It cannot be partially Coleoptera. As the above fall armyworm example suggests, folk categories may be defined so that some objects "almost" or "barely" meet the definition. For Honduran campesinos, small cogolleros are still cogolleros, but the bigger ones are better or more proper examples of a cogollero. And the same insect when found in a maize ear, is called an elotero, which is almost a cogollero, but not quite.

Lore

Defining a set of folk categories is a good start to describing folk knowledge, but local people have a deeper understanding for each of those concepts, which we also need to know if we are going to work with rural people as colleagues in research.

The Sociology of Knowledge

This is may be rather complex, with different people (women, elders, ritual specialists) knowing certain things. Games and drawings can be used to elicit some of these differences (Nazarea-Sandoval, 1995). However, much of folk knowledge is shared by the entire group of people (Hays, 1983).

Memory Load

There is some suggestion that people can hold about 500 names in their head, 500 personal names of people, 500 names for plants, 500 place names, etc. This has obvious implications for folk entomology.

Chronologies

Some folk knowledge is organized into chronologies, e.g., the folk phenology of maize in Honduras.

Alternative Classifications

Povinelli (1990) claims that the Emiyenggal and Batjemal peoples of Australia classify animals in four different kinds of taxonomy (habitat, morphology, function, food criteria) depending on context. In fact, agricultural scientists do the same thing, with alternate classifications by phylogeny (e.g., horse is a kind of equine) or by function (horse is a kind of livestock). Integrated pest management (IPM) experts routinely classify diverse organisms into special categories like "pests of maize" or "pests of coffee" which are not at all phylogenetic.

Regional Synonyms

Unlike scientific classifications, folk taxonomies may use different labels for similar categories, from one place to the next.

Farmer Experiments

Farmers constantly experiment, but we often do not pay enough attention to them. Noticing farmer experiments is important for deciding how we can work with farmers as colleagues (Table 2).

Smallholder farmers have knowledge, and it is organized in ways that are not as strange as they seem. Farmers also conduct experiments. In other words, (many) farmers are knowledgeable and creative, which is something researchers look for in choosing colleagues. However, farmer experiments are organized in remarkably different ways from those of formal research (Table 3).

Filling in Gaps in Knowledge

We have suggested above that there are four kinds of knowledge. Whether researchers decide there are four, three, or six kinds of knowledge is not quite as important as whether they make a serious effort to inventory farmer knowledge during the first phase of the project, as part of the assessment of research demand. Use that inventory now to prepare training sessions with the communities. During the demand assessment phase, researchers learn from farmers, and now they should return the favor, helping farmers to understand some key scientific concepts.

Each researcher has to understand what farmers know, do not know, or misunderstand, and whether the available scientific knowledge is relevant or whether it needs fundamental research. It is no longer enough to develop techniques on-station and then blame extensionists when farmers reject the ideas. Researchers may be increasingly exhorted to not only develop new knowledge but also promote it and ensure that it is put to use. In order to do this they have to create a framework of the relevant knowledge and its use and place themselves and the farmers and extensionists within that structure. Making a table or a diagram is probably the easiest way to clarify what each group of stakeholders knows. Once they have done this, they may find their work more satisfying and easier to defend against critics. Here we offer a few ideas, based on the four types of local knowledge (Table 4).

Conclusion

Local knowledge is complex, but with certain irregularities. It may seem haphazard at first glance, but it is structured. It has formal properties. Folk biology is structured like formal biological knowledge, in some ways, but not in others. There is, of course, more to it, but the technical literature is fairly accessible. Readers who are interested can read some of the references cited below.

Local knowledge should neither be romanticized nor looked down upon. Learning the local knowledge of any topic takes some time, but it is worth doing. Whether for extension or research, learning what the local people think and know is the foundation for collaborating with them as colleagues.

References

Bentley, J.W. 1991. Que Es Hielo? Percepciones de los Campesinos Hondurenos Sobre Enfermedades del Frijoly Otros Cultivos. Intercencia 16(3): 131-137.

Bentley, J.W. and G. Rodriguez. 2001. Honduran Folk Entomology. Current Anthropology 42(2): 285-301.

Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Brown, C.H. 1994. Language and Living Things: Uniformities in Folk Classification and Naming. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Conklin, H.C. 1962. Lexicographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomies. International Journal of American Linguistics 28, Part 2(4): 119-141.

Hays, T.E. 1983. Ndumba Folk Biology and General Principles of Ethnobiological Classification and Nomenclature. American Anthropologist 85: 592-611.

Hunn, E.S. 1990. Nch'i-Wana, "The Big River": Mid-Columbia Indians and their Land. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Nazarea-Sandoval, V.D. 1995. Local Knowledge and Agricultural Decision Making in the Philippines: Class, Gender and Resistance. Cornell University Press.

Povinelli, E. 1990. Emiyenggal and Batjemal Folk Classifications, Cox Peninsula, Northern Territory: Figuring Continuity and Contingency. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2: 53-59.

Sillitoe, P. 1996. A Place Against Time: Land and Environment in the Papua New Guinea Highlands. London: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Contributed by:
Jeffery W. Bentley and Peter S. Baker
Email: bentley@albatros.cnb.net

8
Indigenous Knowledge: A Conceptual Framework and a Case from Solomon Islands

Despite unprecedented interest in local and indigenous ecological knowledge (IEK) over the last 20 years, there is still a lack of awareness of the complexity in IEK and the barriers to its effective use for ecosystem management. Development professionals and project participants often minimize the importance of social structures and biophysical features of the ecosystem that support systems of IEK and how the process of change impacts that system.

This paper describes research that attempts to expand and refine the understanding of IEK as dynamic and place-based to better inform contemporary ecosystem management. Local ecological knowledge can be understood as knowledge that emerges from a complex of context, practice and belief (CPB). This conceptual framework incorporates structural and organizational features of human ecosystem interaction and concepts of space and time in the understanding of IEK.

A case example from the communities of Uzamba and Valapata in the Solomon Islands shows that understanding how people are engaged within their surroundings, instead of documenting knowledge that can be articulated, can assist in bridging differences in worldviews between researchers and indigenous peoples.

Clash Between Worldviews

Researchers often emphasize the factual aspects of indigenous knowledge over the spiritual foundations, worldviews and values of indigenous peoples, and this has not served indigenous peoples nor the environment well. Documentation and integration of local knowledge over the last 10 years has done little to protect the land from environmental destruction. Understanding the complexity of IEK goes far beyond consulting with local community members to document species names, classification systems, the local uses of plants, changing weather and animal migration patterns. This kind of 'directed' consultation usually results in one worldview being brought under the auspices of another, and in the process, the local knowledge is decontextualized as facts are taken out of context and extracted in a piecemeal fashion. Such treatment of local ecological knowledge by researchers presumes that knowledge held collectively in communities can be documented without consideration of how knowledge is a dynamic interplay of a complexity of variables.

Another assumption in development ideology is that there will be epistemological compatibility between project participants. Presupposing knowledge compatibility does not acknowledge the complexity of local beliefs, practice and context operative in communities and how this shapes local epistemology, or ways of knowing. It remains a challenge to develop a 'conceptual symbiosis' (Hornborg, 1994) between all players in a development initiative, be they indigenous community members or western- trained academic scholars who have never lived in a small village. A conceptual framework is needed within which to view local and indigenous ecological knowledge – one that goes beyond the imposition of one worldview upon another and which, instead, transcends epistemological differences.

Understanding the epistemological basis of IEK is more about knowing Why rather than knowing How which tends to be emphasized more by western science.

A Conceptual Framework for Representing IEK

IEK can be represented as emerging from a complex system composed of three subsystems: context, practice and belief (CPB) (Figure 1). Contextual knowledge portrays learning due to history, demographic factors and biophysical features of place. Knowledge as practice portrays meaningful action, through physical interaction and experiential learning. Knowledge as belief portrays the influence that spirituality and values have on how people act within their ecosystem.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Showing the Emergence of IEK from a Traditional System where Knowledge is Acquired Within the Local Ecosystem

The CPB framework can be used to represent structure and organization in the complex ecosystem and it represents knowledge as engagement rather than as abstract understanding. The use of the CPB complex as a basis for undertanding local knowledge systems is intended to give some order to the myriad of ecosystem variables that influence IEK. It is based on the assumption that by understanding the whole, properties emerge that are not evident in the component parts. Indigenous ecological knowledge (shown in the diagram as the triangle 'above' the three CPB components) is considered the 'property' that emerges from the interaction of multiple component parts. Structure (the CPB variables in the socio-ecological complex) and organization (cognitive process which brings forth reality) are reciprocally inter-related. Changes in structure may influence changes in cognition – changes in cognition also influence changes in structure.

Within a complex system, IEK constitutes a metaphorical mental model, which represents context-based conceptions of the environment and provides the basis for action in daily life. Mental models are not designed to conform to the reality of the outsider, but are meant to represent and engagement of people within ecosystems.

The conceptual framework also incorporates elements of scale. The spatial dimension of IEK is the holistic, embedded or 'place-based' aspect of knowledge, signifying the situatedness (at any one point in time) within the social, cultural, historical and biophysical aspects of locale or 'place'. The temporal scale of IEK is the change that may occur in any of the CPB variables and the influence this has on emergent IEK. The time scale is also shown in the diagram as the cycle of knowledge acquisition and transfer (shown as the cycle in the center of the triangle). Both factual (explicit) knowledge and tacit (implicit) knowledge constitute the mental model.

As the CPB complex changes, in time and space, IEK also changes which, in turn, influences CPB (Figure 2). The emergent knowledge is shown as displaced from the local ecosystem due to the influence of several driving forces. For example, a component of the belief subsystem is the use of specific 'magical' practices to cultivate the traditional crop. This has changed over both time and in space: i.e., there were several practices that were specifically linked to particular times in the year or a person's life, that changed to practices determined by external drivers. The change in the spatial dimension is from practicing traditional forms of cultivation that included worship of deceased ancestors who resided over gardens, to an introduced belief system. The change in both time and space of this component has accelerated the loss of the local knowledge that is associated with traditional forms of spirituality. Traditional beliefs are strongly associated with the relationship to the land and resource base. As local knowledge becomes 'lifted' from local context, it becomes less tacit and experiential and more explicit and factual, influenced more by factors outside the local ecosystem.

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework Showing the Shifting to Disembedded IEK as Knowledge is Acquired Outside the Local Ecosystem

The process of reflexivity shown in Figure 2 emerges and influences the knowledge production cycle. Reflexivity, while displacing IEK further towards the explicit or abstract end of the knowledge continuum, is referred to as the 'formalization' of knowledge. It is a process that may become an important, if not critical, process enabling knowledge holders to transcend time and reclaim 'traditional' knowledge that was once used in a specific context and apply it within a new context. Reflexivity may also be considered part of the resilience and adaptive capacity of a community. The concept of reflexivity as introspection may be a means to locate both traditional and contemporary IEK in the current context of ecosystems management.

Re-articulating traditional practices, institutions and associated knowledge so that it has application within a new context is partially the 'process of knowing how we know. The process of being reflexive bridges different contexts (spatial and temporal scales) and allows for a set of beliefs or practices that are embedded in a particular context to be applied in changing contexts.

Conclusion

The concept of local/indigenous ecological knowledge as a system and deconstructing that system to understand how knowledge is known, influenced and constructed establishes common ground for bridging the epistemological gap that occurs when people with different worldviews are working together on a common issue. (For indigenous views on bridging epistemological differences, see box next page.)

Sharing knowledge turns out to be astonishingly difficult but challenging dichotomies assists in breaking down the barriers.

The perceived dichotomy between 'local' or 'indigenous scientific' and 'western scientific' exists because knowledge of indigenous peoples has been essentialized as a cultural commodity and western science is grounded in the mistaken belief of universal truth. If the concept of knowledge in all societies is understood by how we know through the mode of engagement within the ecosystem, and not as an objective truth, then there is some common ground to enable multiple perspectives to contribute to ecosystems management, whether on a local, regional, national or even global scale.

The dichotomy of absolute vs. culturally-constructed knowledge is broken down by the understanding of knowledge as effective action in a world that is constituted by engagement within the ecosystem. This approach based on an awareness of the complexity and variability of epistemology places all knowledge systems within a common conceptual framework for understanding.

The recognition that western science may also be constructed based on particulars of context, practice and belief may be a start to more effective integration of both local/indigenous ecological knowledge and 'western science'.

Understanding epistemology - how we come to know in our lifelong engagement within our local and global ecosystems -- is the basis for a conceptual framework (CPB) that provides a means to seek commensurability among different worldviews and perspectives and bring a more thorough understanding of human-ecosystem interactions.

References

Battiste, M. and J.Y. Henderson. 2000. Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage. Purich Publishing Ltd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Hobart, M. 1993. Introduction: The Growth of Ignorance? In: Hobart, M. (ed). An Anthropological Critique of Development. The Growth of Ignorance. pp 1-30. Routledge, London.

Hornborg, A. 1994. Environmentalism, Ethnicity and Sacred Places: Reflections on Modernity, Discourse and Power. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 31(3): 245-267.

IKAP. 2004. Proceedings of a Workshop on Bridging Epistemologies – Indigenous Views: Indigenous Understanding of Nature and its Changes. Indigenous Views About Science and Ways of Bridging Different Knowledges from the Perspective of Indigenous Peoples. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 17-20 March 2004. Alexandria, Egypt.

Kaplan, S. and R. Kaplan. 1982. Cognition and Environment. Functioning in an Uncertain World. Praeger Publishers, NY.

Lambrou, Y. 1998. Benefit Sharing of Indigenous Knowledge. Paper prepared for the 1998 Biodiversity Convention, Rio.

Maturana, H.R. and F.J. Varela. 1987. The Tree of Knowledge. The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. New Science Library. Shambhala Publications, Boston and London.

Rappaport, R.A. 1979. Ecology, Meaning and Religion. North Atlantic Books. Berkeley, California.

Simpson, L. 2001. Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Marginalization, Appropriation and Continued Disillusions. Unpublished transcript of presentation at the 'Honouring Indigenous Knowledge Conference', Saskatoon, May 28-30, 2001.

Woodley, E. 2004. Local and Indigenous Ecological Knowledge as an Emergent Property of a Complex System: A Case Study in the Solomon Islands. Paper prepared for the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Conference "Bridging Scales and Epistemologies", 17-20 March 2004. Alexandria, Egypt.

Contributed by:
Ellen Woodley
Email: tegwood@albedo.net

9
Participatory Research Approaches: Some Key Concepts

Participatory research has three key elements: people, power and praxis (Finn, 1994). It is people-centered (Brown, 1985) in the sense that the process of critical inquiry is informed by and responds to the experiences and needs of people involved. Participatory research is about power. Power is crucial to the construction of reality, language, meanings and rituals of truth; power functions in all knowledge and in every definition. Power is knowledge and knowledge creates truth and therefore power (Foucault, 1980). Participatory research is also about praxis. It recognizes the inseparability of theory and practice and critical awareness of the personal-political dialectic.

Participatory research makes a participatory approach to learning as a central part of a research process. Research is not done just to generate facts, but to develop understanding of oneself and one's context. It is about understanding how to learn, which allows people to become self-sufficient learners and evaluate knowledge that others generate. Good participatory research helps develop relationships of solidarity by bringing people together to collectively research, study, learn, and then act. There is no off-the-shelf formula, step-by-step method, or 'correct" way to do participatory research. Rather, participatory methodology is best described as a set of principles and a process of engagement in the inquiry.

Conceptualizing the Research Process

Participatory research stresses the importance of creating a participatory and democratic learning environment that provides people (especially the underprivileged) the opportunity to overcome what Freire has called the "habit of submission"—the frame of mind that curtails people from fully and critically engaging with their world and participating in civic life (Freire, 1978). It is only through participation in learning environments in which open, critical and democratic dialogue is fostered, Freire suggests, that people develop greater self-confidence along with greater knowledge.

Participatory research challenges practices that separate the researcher from the researched and promotes the forging of a partnership between researchers and the people under study. Both researcher and participant are actors in the investigative process, influencing the flow, interpreting the content, and sharing options for action. Ideally, this collaborative process is empowering because it:

brings isolated people together around common problems and needs

validates their experiences as the foundation for understanding and critical reflection

presents the knowledge and experiences of the researchers as additional information upon which to critically reflect

contextualizes what have previously felt like "personal," individual problems or weakness

links such personal experiences to political realities

The result of this kind of activity is living knowledge that may get translated into action.

Dialogue and Critical Reflection

A key methodological feature that distinguishes participatory research from other social research is dialogue. Through dialogue, people come together and participate in all crucial aspects of investigation, education and collective action. It is through talking to one another and doing things together that people get connected, and this connectedness leads to shared meaning. Dialogue encourages people to voice their perspectives and experiences, helping them to look at the "whys" of their lives, inviting them to critically examine the sources and implications of their own knowledge. In this context, dialogue allows to awaken participants' voices and cultivates their participation as critical, active agents of change. This is particularly essential in the light of many social forces of domination at work in the lives of people from socially and culturally disenfranchised groups.

The role of the researcher in this process is a facilitator of the learning process. The researcher is not an expert who is assumed to have all the knowledge and gives it to the people who are assumed not to have any knowledge. Rather, it is a facilitator who sets up situations that allow people to discover for themselves what they already know along with gaining for themselves new knowledge. In this process, the researcher not only learns from the participants, but also engages in dialogue by posing questions:

What are the conditions of participants' lives?

What are the determining features of the social structure and social relations that contribute to creating their life patterns?

What choices do they make, and why do they believe those are good things to do?

What are the possibilities for their experience and action?

The researcher's sharing of his or her perceptions, questions in response to the dialogue, and different theories and data invite the participants to critically reflect upon their own experiences and personal theories from a broader context. Ideally, in such a setting, the expert knowledge of the researcher combined with the experiential knowledge of community members, create an entirely new ways of thinking about issues.

This is the meaning of conscientization, which Paulo Freire has helped popularize. Critical consciousness is raised not by analyzing the problematic situation alone, but by engaging in action in order to transform the situation. Dialogue acts as a means for fostering critical consciousness about social reality, an understanding based on knowledge of how people and issues are historically and politically situated.

Participatory Communication and Research Methods

Communication is a key methodological concern in participatory research. It draws upon creative combinations of written, oral and visual communication in the design, implementation and documentation of research. Grassroots community workers, village women, and consciousness raising groups have used photo novella (people's photographic documentation of their everyday lives) to record and to reflect their needs, promote dialogue, encourage action, and inform policy. Researchers use theater and visual imagery to facilitate collective learning, expression, and action. Other forms of popular communication are utilized such as collectively written songs, cartoons, community meetings, community self-portraits and videotape recordings.

Critical knowledge development calls for a creative blend of traditional methods of inquiry and new approaches. Use of alternative communication methods in participatory research has both pushed researchers to re-examine conventional methods and opened up the possibility of using methods that previously would not have been considered legitimate.

References

Brown, L.D. 1985. People-Centered Development and Participatory Research. Harvard Educational Review, 55 (1), 69-75.

Finn, J. 1994. The Promise of Participatory Research. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 5 (2), 25-42.

Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. New York: Pantheon.

Freire, P. 1978. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.

Contributed by:
Sung Sil Lee Sohng
Email: suesohng@u.washington.edu

10
Property Rights, Collective Action and Technologies for Natural Resource Management

Degradation of natural resources has become a global problem that threatens the livelihood of millions of poor people. Many promising technologies for natural resource management are available to address these problems, but farmers and others often fail to adopt them. Why is this? Although many factors can be identified, lack of secure property rights and collective action deserve greater attention from policymakers and technology developers.

How Property Rights and Collective Action Affect Technology Adoption

Unlike conventional agricultural technologies, many natural resource management (NRM) technologies take years to give results. If farmers do not have secure rights to the natural resources, there is no incentive for them to adopt these technologies.

Some technologies need to be adopted over a wide area to be effective. Thus, farmers with small areas have to cooperate with their neighbors to increase the land area and adopt the technology. In analyzing how property rights and collective action affect technology adoption, one has to examine the time horizon and spatial scale of the technology.

Some technologies require collective action over a wide area but offer rapid economic returns like Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Some technologies require long term investment but are localized in area, like terracing. Others have long time horizons and need collective action like watershed management and irrigation systems.

Figure 1 illustrates the time and spatial scale of various technologies in relation to degrees of collective action and tenure security. This framework helps determine whether the status of property rights or collective action is likely to constrain or enable various technology choices. It can also provide guidance on developing and disseminating technologies that are appropriate for an area's institutional context. Technologies operating on a landscape (spatial) scale may be more appropriate where traditions of cooperation are strong, while those that require a long time to produce benefits may be more successful where tenures are long-term and reasonably secure.

Property rights and collective action help determine the type of technologies adopted by communities. They are also important in determining who benefits from productivity increases, both directly by determining who can reap the benefits of improvements in factor productivity, and indirectly through their efforts on land markets, access to credit and the like.

Figure 1. Property Rights, Collective Action, and Sustainable Agricultural and Natural Resource Management

Note: Location of specific technologies is approximate, for illustrative purposes. HYVs = High Yielding Varieties

Property Rights

Property rights include not only ownership of resources as defined by laws, but also a variety of rights from customary law and local practice.

In some developing countries and in Africa, policy dictates replacing community-based land tenure institutions with freehold tenure backed by formal titles. However, evidence shows that having titles and privatizing land ownership is unlikely to increase adoption of technologies because it tends to be insufficient for enhancing tenure security, and worse, may even weaken it.

Where indigenous property rights institutions have been effective in enforcing secure property rights for community members, a title does little to strengthen the land rights of community members. Only when local systems have broken down (because of either internal factors or external threats like outsiders attempting to claim land) does land titling appear to be needed. In highly commercialized areas, land titling may also be needed for securing credit or engaging in land markets.

Collective Action

Collective action for natural resource management can include: joint investment in buying, constructing or maintaining local infrastructure and technologies; setting and implementing rules to exploit a resource; representing the group to outsiders; and sharing information.

However, one cannot assume that collective action exists. Research shows there is greater social cohesion if the number of users is fairly small, if they are alike in terms of shared values and dependence on the resource, and if the net benefits from group membership are substantial and equitably distributed.

Where there are sufficient incentives but governance mechanisms are lacking, local leadership or external community organizers can facilitate collective action. But for collective action to be sustainable, governance should be institutionalized and not dependent on a single person.

Linkages between collective action and property rights are especially strong in the management of common property resources. Tenure security for users of common property resources requires the following:

an effective local institution manages and regulates the use of the resource and ensures that members abide by the rules

the group or community has secure ownership rights over the collectively managed resource

individuals have secure membership in the group to be able to continue using the resources

Many common property resources are under pressure from factors like population expansion and increased competition. Policies that recognize community rights and local organizations help natural resource management in such situations.

Factors Influencing Technology Options

Many other factors besides property rights and collective action keep farmers from adopting technologies for natural resource management. However, even many of those factors interact with property rights or collective action.

Information

Farmers need information if they are to adopt technologies. The distribution of information and technologies is linked to property rights. At the community level, extension services often favor landowners which give greater access to men and the wealthy. Collective action can strengthen the bargaining power of disadvantaged community interest groups, and the formation of networks among community members can facilitate access to information. Networks and other forms of collective action may also enable coordination of technology adoption efforts. For example, establishing a communally-managed seed bank may facilitate individual tree planting and provide a forum for information sharing on the technology.

Environmental and Price Risk

Risk-averse and low-wealth farmers are often reluctant to adopt technologies because they need stable income and consumption streams. The ability to manage risk can be affected by prevailing property rights and collective action institutions. Common property resources frequently function as a buffer against risk. Collective action enables risk-sharing and diversification, and inspires mechanisms for collective self-help like norms dealing with reciprocity.

Wealth

Wealth is linked to power and property rights over natural resources thus affecting people's options for adopting technology. For example, in Pakistan, farmers who own more land are wealthier and can afford to install tubewells. They, therefore, have a control over groundwater which makes them even richer.

People who are more endowed place a higher future value on medium- and long-run benefits produced by investments in technologies compared to the poor who are constrained by food insecurity and risks. As a risk-sharing device, collective action can alleviate food insecurities and other survival risks. In addition, it helps realign the distribution of gains from a resource by facilitating the adoption by the group of more advanced but "expensive" technologies.

Credit

Credit is a way of overcoming wealth constraints to investment. It is often argued that farmers need individual land title to offer as collateral for credit. Privatization gives small farmers access to formal financial services. However, these formal financial institutions remain rare in many rural settings, particularly for agricultural lending which is considered risky.

The many examples of informal financial institutions undertaking successful group lending schemes may be seen as substituting collective action for conventional property rights as a form of collateral. Credit groups may even enhance opportunities for collective action in natural resource management (NRM). If groups are already formed around a common purpose and share a common set of norms and values, this reduces the information and coordination costs of their organizing around another purpose.

Labor

Labor bottlenecks resulting from high labor requirements are also cited as a constraint to technology adoption, especially if the new technology creates a seasonal peak for labor that overlaps with other agricultural activities. Collective action and reciprocity arrangements may be employed as a means to overcome household labor shortages thereby facilitating the use or more labor-intensive technologies.

Within households, property rights often fail to correspond to labor responsibilities. In some cultures, women work in their husband's plots in order to access plots for their own production. The introduction of a new technology, like irrigation, can shift these labor demands and responsibilities.

Other Conditioning Factors

Other factors besides property rights institutions expand or constrain people's technology choices. These include laws and community rules, norms and ideas.

In Mexico, farmers' adoption of conservation tillage practices is partially attributed to state agricultural policies including a law prohibiting the burning of crop residues. On the other hand, in South Asia, taboos forbid women from using plows, thus restricting agricultural productivity and reinforcing women's dependence on men. Nevertheless, property rights institutions frequently shape and reinforce other rules, both legal and normative.

Although on the surface cultural norms that hinder technology adoption may appear to have equity, efficiency or environmental drawbacks, there are more profound implications behind this. In many rural African societies, communities promote cohesion and lessen exposure to risk through kinship and marital practices. These have implications for the distribution of property rights. In patrilineal societies, women often move to their husband's community after marriage. They then acquire secondary use rights to the land while giving up their right to land in the place of their birth. The principles and property regimes that facilitate a cohesive community may reduce exposure to environmental risk, and preserve women's secondary rights, but with rising rates of widowhood from HIV/AIDS, the lack of rights for women creates other types of vulnerability.

Property rights and collective action are not fixed for all time but are dynamic institutions. The choice of NRM technologies inevitably shapes the institutions underlying property rights and collective action. For example, the gains from coordinated efforts in irrigation systems may lead farmers to cooperate and develop common property regimes if they have the necessary information and means to reduce transaction costs.

However, if incentives for adoption are not built into property rights and collective action institutions, if farmers lack key information, and if transaction costs of coordination and enforcement are not reduced, then technology adoption will not succeed. Hence, the ability of a society or community to efficiently adapt determines its potential for technical and institutional change.

Implications for Efficiency, Equity and Environmental Sustainability

Adoption of new technologies is not an end in itself. Rather, technological change should be evaluated in terms of its contribution to broader goals of growth, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability.

Property Rights and Technology Adoption

Technologies that increase production of one group at the expense of other groups do not necessarily improve efficiency.

Privatization of common property and land under communal tenure tends to lead to loss of multiple user rights in favor of a select few. Research has linked conversion to freehold tenure to loss of access to land and other resources by smallholders, and to large-scale acquisitions by the rich.

Evaluation of technology efficiency needs to consider risk and transaction cost. Wealthy farmers can afford the risk of adopting mechanized and capital-intensive technologies while low-wealth households may not take the same risk; rather, they will place higher value on stability of earnings. Incorporating transaction cost and risk considerations in efficiency calculations shows the rational strategies by the poor, and broadens appreciation for technologies that improve efficiency.

Ownership of property enhances the status and bargaining power of individuals within the household and the community. Greater control over resources tends to enhance men's capacity to influence power structures, and to exert political leverage with government officials and those responsible for technology distribution, infrastructure and market development. Thus, technology will mainly reflect the interest of men who control substantial resources unless collective action emerges that is capable of reshaping policies and political outcomes to override these biases.

Collective Action and Technology Adoption

Collective action can be used to influence choices based on their anticipated impact on efficiency, equity and environmental sustainability.

Collective action can enable marginalized groups to challenge property rights institutions, political and cultural institutions and technology adoption. It can also be used to prevent the use of certain technologies or to modify their features, as in the case of some Filipino fishermen who were able to stop the use of dynamites and poison for fishing. Instead, local groups constructed artificial reefs to lure more fish and increase their food supply.

Linkages and Trade-Offs

Inequities have environmental implications. The use of pesticides by large farmers may adversely affect small farmers if they do not have access to it, especially if the pesticide eliminates even natural enemies of pests.

Inadequate access to land and technology by the poor can lead to overexploitation and degradation of resources. When indigenous peoples are no longer assured of benefits from investments or long-term management practices, individualization of resources can facilitate more sustainable resource management practices.

Efficiency, equity and environmental objectives also involve trade-offs. · Maximizing efficiency leads to selection of some inputs (labor, capital, land) at the expense of others, leading to inequitable outcomes. In the United States, efficiency-enhancing technologies is partly responsible for the demand for skilled labor at the expense of unskilled labor.

Efficiency measures tend to assess only the private financial costs of inputs and neglects social and environmental costs.

Trade-offs may sometimes be overstated. Environmental degradation can raise the perceived value of products leading to investment in technologies that conserve the resource base. When efficiency criteria are placed in a dynamic framework, the value of a resource over time is captured and conservation often emerges as the optimal strategy. When transaction costs and risk considerations are incorporated into efficiency calculations, the livelihood strategies of the poor can be seen as economically rational. When productivity measures include the value of non-traded goods and services in poor households (like women's labor), an equitable distribution of resources or technologies that favor the disadvantaged may be seen as highly productive.

Appreciation of less tangible economic and social dynamics broadens the scope of technologies deemed to be efficiency improving, so that the poor are not left behind or hurt by the technologies.

Policy Implications and Areas for Research

Strengthening local institutions of property rights and collective action increases the probability that people will use many new technologies for resource management. However, no single property regime is most appropriate for a particular technology in every instance. Local law derived from a number of sources may have an equal or greater influence on actual behavior.

Collective action cannot be dictated by outsiders. However, policies such as employing a cadre of institutional organizers have been effective in fostering local organizations for voluntary resource management activities.

Property rights over natural resources can provide an important policy tool for strengthening collective action in their management. Just as individuals are unlikely to invest in technologies unless they have secure tenure, communities cannot be expected to adopt long-term practices if they lack long-term rights to the resource. Yet many governments have been unwilling to transfer rights to water, irrigation, infrastructure, rangelands or forests when they devolve management responsibility to user groups. The issues of community rights and ways of creating new common property resources (in place of government ownership) are emerging as critical issues in devolution programs.

Contributed by:
Anna Knox and Ruth Meinzen-Dick
Email: a.knox@cgiar.org

11
Innovation Systems Perspective: From Measuring Impact to Learning Institutional Lessons

While perspectives recognizing the institutional context and research have occupied only a modest amount of attention in the international agricultural research policy community, the perspective has come to dominate the policy debate and practice in other research and economic sectors. It is surprising to find that concepts that are informing international agricultural research policy were superseded a decade ago in this wider science and technology policy arena.

The contemporary debate from this parallel policy literature now takes it as given that the linear model of innovation and its neo-classical economics is of little value in evaluating and planning research and development (R&D). There has been a shift in the role of policy from examining the determinants and consequence of research, to a capacity development role where emphasis is on strengthening networks of users and producers of knowledge (Velho, 2002).

Underpinning this shift of perspective over the last two decades has been a deepening understanding of the nature of innovation as a process and the accompanying realization that neo-classical economics alone cannot explain the dynamics of economic systems.

The innovation system concept serves to draw different ideas together including the idea of a "national system of innovation". At its simplest, the concept recognizes that innovations emerge from systems of actors. These systems are embedded in an institutional context that determines how individual actors behave and how they interact with other elements of the system. Learning and the role of institutions are critical components of such systems. Learning is an interactive and thus socially-embedded process, which cannot be understood without reference to its institutional and cultural contexts (Lundvall, 1992). Successful systems are characterized by:

continuous evolutionary cycles of learning and innovation

combinations of technical and institutional innovations

interaction of diverse research and non-research actors

shifting roles for information producers, information users and transfers of knowledge dependent on a need basis

an institutional context that supports interactions, learning and knowledge flows between actors

The application of this concept of a national system of innovation in the agricultural research sector is gaining ground (see Hall et al., 2002.; Clark et al., 2003). At the heart of this framework is the contention that R&D is always embedded in social, political and institutional contexts and that unless the influence of this environment is accounted for by decision makers, the evaluation and planning of R&D will be incomplete.

Innovation Systems in Planning and Evaluation Processes

What does this mean for the evaluation and planning process? Some of the principles that are required to relate R&D to institutional context include the following.

An inventory of Innovation Actors

The framework provides a starting point for identifying the full range of actors relevant to a particular innovation system. While many of the normal public-sector actors are present in the conventional policy schema, closer investigation reveals a wider range of individuals and organizations from other sectors.

System Competency

Once a full inventory of actors has been established, it is then possible to examine the extent to which relationships exist among actors. The existence of relationships will depend on the policy context and the wider institutional environment. For example, strong public-private partnerships may have emerged through a liberal policy towards germplasm access. Alternatively, weak linkages may be a result of restrictive personnel polices for public sector scientists that prevent them from undertaking contract research for the private sector. Hence, analysis has the effect of directing the focus of evaluation and planning on linkages that need to be developed and on potential policy changes.

Actor Roles

Part of the relationship analysis concerns the importance of multiple roles played by some actors and the different types of relationship these roles imply. For example, an agricultural university may be both a source of information on regional variety trials, as well as a recipient of improved breeding lines from a crop improvement center. Both types of roles are important for an effective innovation system, and the evaluation and planning process needs to understand their separate but linked existences. Actors with important roles that are excluded from existing arrangements need to be recognized. Technology users and product consumers from poor communities are examples.

Cultural Context

The types of relationship that develop in a particular innovation system reflect the national context as well as different organizational cultures. For example, the national context may have a strongly paternalistic public sector culture with a mistrust of private sector enterprise. Or the public sector may have a strongly hierarchical culture, whereas the NGO sector may have a more decentralized, participatory culture. Partnerships between public agencies and NGOs will not necessarily lead to more participatory approaches because of the organizational culture of the former. The evaluation and planning process needs to account for these contextual features.

Relationship Dynamics

The importance of the nature and dynamics of relationships between the entire range of actors, from the innovation systems point of view, is that their analysis reveals that such relationships are often strongly asymmetrical, preventing interactive learning. For example, partnerships between international and national agencies are often skewed by more favorable access to resources on the part of the former, by historical patterns of interaction, and by professional and cultural norms that value "outsiders" at the expense of "locals". Local political processes, interest groups, ethnic communities, and social hierarchies will all contribute to the political economy of the innovation process. The evaluation and planning process will benefit from an awareness of these dynamics.

Reflection and Institutional Learning

The innovation systems framework regards reflection on process and institutional learning as key elements for success. For example, systems in which there is clearly a gulf between policy rhetoric and research practice have a weakness with regard to institutional learning.

Other indicators of weak institutional learning may be a reluctance to admit mistakes and confront failure and its causes, or even a reluctance to revisit key assumptions about roles or ways of working. In contrast, an organization in which senior management encourages and rewards reflection and learning and where self-evaluation is undertaken regularly, demonstrates a tendency to possess a higher capacity for continuous institutional learning and innovation. The evaluation and planning process could benefit from recognizing the importance of a learning culture within public-sector research organizations and their partners (Watts et al., 2003).

This philosophical shift towards institutional learning and change entails practical changes in international agricultural research organizations. These include the following:

Moving the focus of impact and evaluation from examining changes in technology user groups to including changes in the way the research community operates as well as its interaction with other organizations and institutional (including political) contexts.

Introducing institutional changes that provide incentives to formalize learning as part of the practice of research organizations. This requires changes among donors and senior managers of research organizations and probably within professional bodies relevant to the international agricultural research community.

Recognizing capacity development as an important outcome and purpose of research.

Accepting the need to explore behavioral changes in innovation systems as a way of monitoring progress and learning, as well as a way of promoting critical institutional lessons to wider audiences in the R&D community.

Recognizing the systems nature of capacity development so that evaluation becomes a task that needs to be done collectively with partners as well as at the individual organizational level.

Accepting the need to embed evaluation as learning in the day-to-day procedures of research stations and administrators and acknowledging the skill and resource implications of this. This implies the need for greater numbers of social scientists in international agricultural research organizations, but with a hands-on role of facilitating learning in addition to disciplinary research contributions. It also implies the need to build learning skills among all partners and to allocate time within the research process for collective learning and reflection.

The innovation systems framework is not presented as a panacea for improving the performance of agricultural research. The aim is to draw to the attention of planners, evaluators and research managers to the need for (and the possibility of) thinking about agricultural research in a more holistic and evolutionary fashion.

References

Clark, N, G., A.J. Hall, V. Rasheed Sulaiman and N. Guru. 2001. Research as Capacity Building: The Case of an NGO Development Post-harvest Innovation System for the Himalayan Hills. World Development. Vol. 31, No. 11. pp. 1845-1863.

Freeman, C. 1987. Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter, London.

Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, M. Troww, P. Scott and Schwartzman. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. Sage, London.

Hall, A. J. and R. V. Sulaiman. 2002 Application of the Innovation Systems Framework in North-South Research Collaboration. The International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development. Vol. 1 No. 3 pp. 195-212.

Hall, A.J., M.V.K. Sivamohan, N. Clark, S. Taylor and G. Bockett. 2001. Why Research Partnerships Really Matter: Innovation Theory, Institutional Arrangements and Implications for the Developing New Technology for the Poor. World Development 29 (5), 783-797.

Hall, A.J., V. Rasheed Sulaiman, N.G. Clark, M.V.K. Sivamohan and B. Yoganand. 2002. Public-Private Sector Interaction in the Indian Agricultural Research System: An Innovation Systems Perspective On Institutional Reform. In: Byerlee, D. and R. G. Echeverrý´ a. (eds.). Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of Privatization: Experiences from the Developing World. CABI, Wallingford.

Hall, A. J., R. V. Sulaiman, N. G. Clark, B. Yoganand. 2003. From Measuring Impact to Learning Institutional Lessons. International Agricultural Research. Agricultural System 78: 213-241.

Horton, D. 1998. Disciplinary Roots and Branches of Evaluation: Some Lessons from Agricultural Research. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 10 (4), 32-66.

Horton, D. and R. Mackay. 1999. Evaluation in Developing Countries: An Introduction. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 11 (4), 5-12.

Lundvall, B.A. (ed.). 1992. National Systems of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, London.

Maredia, M., D. Byerlee and J. Anderson. 2000. Ex -Post Evaluation of Economic Impacts of Agricultural Research Programs: A Tour of Good Practice. Paper presented at the Workshop on "The Future of Impact Assessment in CGIAR: Needs Constraints and Options", Standing Panel on Impact Assessment of the Technical Advisory Committee, Rome, 3-5 May, 39 pp.

Nelson, R.R. and S.G. Winter. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Velho, L. 2002. North-South Collaboration and Systems of Innovation. The International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 1 (3).

Contributed by:
Andrew Hall, V. Rasheed Sulaiman,
Norman Clark and B. Yoganand
E-mail: Hall@intech.unu.edu

12
Participatory Development Communication: Reinforcing the Participatory NRM Research and Action Process

Participatory development communication (PDC) can be defined as "a planned activity, based on the one hand on participatory processes, and on the other hand on media and interpersonal communication, which facilitates dialogue among different stakeholders, around a common development problem or goal, with the objective of developing and implementing a set of activities to contribute to its solution, or its realization, and which supports and accompanies this initiative" (Bessette, 2004:11).

This paper introduces PDC as an essential component of the participatory research and development process and shows how it comes into play in the diagnosis, planning, intervention and assessment phases of the participatory research and development cycle.

Participatory development communication suggests shifting away from informing people in order to change their behaviors or attitudes and focussing instead on facilitating exchanges between various stakeholders. In so doing, common problems are addressed through a joint development initiative among the stakeholders. In PDC, researchers and practitioners come in as facilitators of a process, which involves local communities and other stakeholders in the resolution of a problem or the realization of a common goal.

Acting as a facilitator does not come automatically. This, of course, requires a change of attitude. To facilitate means learning to listen to people, helping them express their views, and assisting them in building consensus for action. For many natural resource management (NRM) researchers and practitioners, this is a new role for which they have not been prepared. How then should they start the process of using communication to facilitate participation and the sharing of knowledge?

An Integrated Participatory Communication, Research and Action Model

Working with participatory development communication means involving the local community in identifying a development problem (or a common goal), discovering its many dimensions, identifying potential solutions (or a set of actions) and taking a decision on a concrete set of actions to experiment or implement. It also means facilitating interaction and collaborative action with other stakeholders who should be part of the process.

This paper suggests an integrated model of participatory communication, research and action to guide researchers and practitioners. The process is represented through the following phases, which are not separated and flow into one another (Figure 1):

1) developing a research relationship with a local community

2) problem identification or goal setting

3) planning

4) intervention (implementation integrating monitoring and evaluation)

5) assessment and utilization of results

Figure 1. The Participatory Communication Research Action

Phase 1. Developing A Research Relationship with a Local Community

Building Relationships

The way by which a research relationship with the local community is established and nurtured determines the degree to which community members will or will not participate in the research or development initiatives. Within that framework, a bidirectional communication process should be employed and promoted. Building mutual trust and understanding is a major challenge at this stage and will continue to be so during the entire period of interaction between researchers or practitioners and the community.

Negotiating Mandate

One does not come to a community without a mandate or agenda. At the same time, communities also want their needs and problems addressed by resource people who come to them. Researchers and practitioners should explain and discuss the scope and limitations of their mandate with community members. In some cases, compromises can be found, like intermediating with other resource organizations that could contribute to the resolution of problems, which are outside the mandate of the researchers or practitioners.

Data Collection or Co-Producing Local Knowledge

Researchers have been trained in data collection. This emphasizes an extractive mode that does not facilitate participation. PDC, on the other hand, suggests that researchers or practitioners collaborate with community members and other stakeholders working in the area (NGOs, development projects, rural media, resource persons, representatives from government or public services, etc.) in order to assemble together and share baseline information. This effort leads a process of co-producing knowledge by drawing on the strengths of the different stakeholders.

PDC stresses the need for adapting the attitudes with the techniques. Co-producing knowledge is different from simply collecting data. It plays an essential part in facilitating participation to the decision-making processes involved in the research or development project. Understanding the local setting usually points out to the identification and analysis of the state of natural resources in the area and to management practices and problems on which it is possible to act. However, four other areas also deserve consideration: gender roles, social stratification and power relationships, culture and beliefs, and finally, communication channels and systems.

Identification of local knowledge associated with natural resource management practices is part of the process of co-producing knowledge. It should also be linked with two other issues: the validation of that knowledge and the identification of modern and scientific knowledge that could reinforce local knowledge.

Identification of Collaboration and Partnerships

In conducting a research or development initiative, other initiatives that may be attempting to engage the same community in other participatory processes should be considered. Identifying other on-going initiatives, developing a communication link with them and looking for opportunities of synergy or collaboration should be part of the methodology.

Activities with a local community also allow researchers and practitioners to identify possible partners that could be involved in the research or development process. It could be a rural radio, a theatre group or an NGO working with the same community. By establishing contacts at the outset of the project, these groups will feel they can play a useful role in the design of the research project instead of perceiving themselves as mere service providers.

Phase 2. Identification of Problems, Potential Solutions, and Implementation of Concrete Initiative

Traditionally, researchers and practitioners used to identify problems in a community and to experiment solutions with the collaboration of local people. With participatory development communication, the researcher or the development practitioner comes in as a facilitator of a process, which involves local communities and other stakeholders in the identification and resolution of a problem or the realization of a common goal.

The communication process should bring people to identify a specific problem they want to address, discuss and understand to establish its causes, possible solutions, and come up with a decision on a set of activities to experiment. But this does not happen in the course of a single meeting with community representatives. Time must be allowed for such a process to mature.

Also, in some cases, the point of departure is not a specific problem but a common goal that a community gives itself. As with the problem-oriented process, the community decides on implementing a set of actions to approach that goal. At the end of both processes, a concrete set of actions, decided by the community, should emerge.

Ideally, this is where development and research objectives should be identified to strengthen and accompany the chosen community initiative. In general, however, such objectives have already been identified in a research and development proposal, before going to such a process with the community. A way to go around this problem is to plan a revision of the initial objectives with the community at the start of the research or development project.

Phase 3. The Research Planning Phase

The next step of the PDC process consists of the development of a communication strategy to accompany and reinforce the community initiative and the research or development activities built around it. This strategy should pursue two main goals: facilitating participation and the sharing of knowledge.

Identifying Different Community Groups

The idea here is to categorize the persons mostly affected by the NRM problem identified in the process and those groups that might be able to contribute to its solution. They may be specific community groups, or other stakeholders who are or could be involved. Addressing a general audience such as "the community" or "the farmers" does not really help in involving people in communication. Every group that makes up the community has its own unique characteristics, a way of perceiving a problem and its solution, and a way of taking actions. Community people may be grouped in terms of age, gender, ethnic origin, language, occupation, social and economic conditions.

In all cases, it is important to pay particular attention to the question of gender. In every setting, the needs, social roles, and responsibilities of men and women are different. The same is true of the degree of access to resources, of participation in decision-making processes, and in the way they will perceive a common problem or potential solutions.

Communication Needs and Objectives

Development needs can be categorized broadly between material needs and communication needs. Any given development problem and attempt to resolve it will present needs relating to material resources and to the conditions to acquire and manage these. However, we will also find complementary needs which involve communication: sharing information, influencing policies, mediating conflicts, raising awareness, facilitating learning, supporting decision-making and collaborative action among others. Clearly, these two aspects should go hand in hand and be addressed in a systemic way by any research or development effort.

Generally, in the context of NRM, they are linked to one or another of these communication functions: raising awareness, sharing information, facilitating learning, supporting participation, decision-making and collaborative action, mediating conflicts and influencing the policy environment.

PDC leads participants through a planning process, which starts with the identification of the specific groups as well as their communication needs and objectives. The research or development team, together with community members and other stakeholders involved, then identifies the appropriate communication activities and communication tools that are needed to reach these objectives.

Moreover, when the use of communication tools implies the development of messages, content or materials, the process should include not only their elaboration with members of the community but also a pre-testing phase that will contribute to their effectiveness.

Phase 4. The Intervention Phase

During the intervention phase, the communication component will focus on the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the communication strategy and on documenting the participatory research process.

The production of a monitoring plan and of an evaluation framework linked to it, will help everyone involved in the activities to monitor what is being accomplished and facilitate its evaluation. The joint elaboration of such a plan by all stakeholders involved, the use of simple tools such as brainstorming, observation, use of pictures, prior training as well as the use of the local language, are all useful techniques. However, no matter how important techniques and methodologies are, the most crucial issue is the way in which researchers or practitioners will approach the evaluation process jointly with their partners, the community members, and the other development stakeholders, so that it becomes a learning experience for everyone involved in the process.

Another important issue is in ensuring proper documentation of activities. This aspect is often forgotten during the heat of activities and the written story after completion, often miss key aspects. Ideally, the account of the research or development initiative should include the difficulties encountered, solutions experimented and the evolution of the partnership between researchers, practitioners, community members and other stakeholders. One way of doing this is to use a weekly "logbook" or a record of activities where all the activities during the week, the observations from the monitoring activities, and other personal comments are taken down. Other means of documenting may also be explored: a photo album, for example, highlighting communication activities with captions and commentaries for each photograph, or a collection of video sequences on each activities, etc.

Phase 5. Assessment and Utilization of Results

At the end of the participatory research or development cycle, community members, researchers and practitioners assess together the results of their activities. Sometimes, this assessment will point out to a redefinition of the problem identified at the beginning of the cycle or of the solution to experiment. Or it will lead to revisit some of the choices made during the planning phase. When the intervention has led to the desired results the next step involves the sharing of this knowledge with different groups of stakeholders as well as scaling efforts with other communities or other groups of stakeholders.

Knowledge sharing refers to making information available in different formats to different groups of users and asking for their feedback. It goes one step ahead of a simple dissemination of information. Scaling up efforts usually point out to one of the following activities of extension, reach or advocacy: extending the process to other groups in the community or to another community; replicating the process at a larger scale, involving a larger number of communities; and using the knowledge produced at the community level to act on a policy level (influencing policymakers or networking with organizations).

Conclusion

Participatory development communication is a tool that reinforces the process of participatory research and/or participatory development. It aims to facilitate community participation to their own development, as well as the sharing of knowledge needed in such a process. It integrates communication, research and action in an integrated framework, and involves researchers, practitioners, community members and other stakeholders in the different phases of the development process.

But also, most importantly, it points out to a conception of NRM research or initiatives that is directly linked to the agenda of communities and seek to reinforce their efforts in fighting poverty and improving living conditions.

References

Bessette, G. 2004. Facilitating Community Participation, Peinang, Southbound and Ottawa, International Development Research Centre.

Servaes, J. (ed). 2003. Approaches to Development, Studies in Communication for Development. UNESCO. Paris.

White, S. (ed). 2003. Participatory Video, Images that Transform and Empower. Sage, New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, London.

Contributed by:
Guy Bessette
Email: gbessette@idrc.ca

13
Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Research and Development: Some Key Elements

The deliberate and careful integration into the project cycle of monitoring and evaluation activities can strengthen the learning, accountability, and effectiveness of research efforts. Using a participatory approach to do so facilitates the realization that what matters is not only what is assessed, but who does the measuring and assessing. In addition, such an approach can contribute to a better understanding of how different concerns and interests are represented and negotiated in a research process. In other words, it helps to understand and assess how and why participation takes places or does not take place.

Monitoring is the systematic, regular collection and occasional analysis of information to identify and possibly measure changes over a period of time. Evaluation is the analysis of the effectiveness and direction of an activity or research project and involves making a judgement about progress and impact. The main differences between monitoring and evaluation are the timing and frequency of observations and the types of questions asked. However, when monitoring and evaluation are integrated into a research strategy as a project management tool, the line between the two becomes rather blurred. Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) is the joint effort or partnership of two or more stakeholders (such as researchers, farmers, government officials, extension workers) to monitor and evaluate, systematically, one or more research or development activities (Vernooy et al., 2003).

In designing monitoring and evaluation activities it is useful to consider six interrelated questions:

Why monitor and evaluate?

For whom?

Who will monitor and evaluate?

What will be monitored and evaluated?

How?

When?

We discuss here the Why? and What? questions and also the very important issue of appropriateness. All six questions are discussed in more detail in McAllister and Vernooy (1999).

WHY to Monitor and Evaluate?

In general, goals can be:

To assess project results: to find out if and how objectives are being met and are resulting in desired changes.

To improve project management and process planning: to better adapt to contextual and risk factors such as social and power dynamics that affect the research process.

To promote learning: to identify lessons of general applicability, to learn how different approaches to participation affect outcomes, impact, and reach, to learn what works and what does not, and to identify what contextual factors enable or constrain the participatory research.

To understand different stakeholders' perspectives: to allow, through direct participation in the monitoring and evaluation process, the various people involved in a research project to better understand each others views and values and to design ways to resolve competing or conflicting views and interests.

To ensure accountability: to assess whether the project is effectively, appropriately, and efficiently executed to be accountable to they key agencies supporting the work (including, but not exclusively, the donors) (Estrella and Gaventa, 1998).

Usually, a monitoring and evaluation plan includes a combination of these goals, but it may be necessary to put more emphasis on one of them, depending on available resources, skills, and time and on the point in the project life-cycle during which the monitoring and evaluation will be done (see Table 1 for an example).

Efficiency, Effectiveness and Relevance

Underlying reasons for monitoring and evaluating are frequently framed in terms of:

Efficiency refers to the amount of time and resources put into the project relative to the outputs and outcomes. A project evaluation may be designed to find out if there was a less expensive, more appropriate, less time-consuming approach for reaching the same objectives.

Effectiveness describes whether or not the research process was useful in reaching project goals and objectives, or resulted in positive outcomes.

Relevance or appropriateness describes the usefulness, ethics, and flexibility of participatory research within the particular context and for the particular research question.

Combined, these criteria enable judgment about whether the outputs and outcomes of the project are worth the costs of the inputs. Effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness can be considered for the different methods, tools and approaches rather than questioning the value of the research approach as a whole.

In this context, the efficiency of a particular method or approach can consider factors such as the time involved for local people balanced against the value of the information gained and whether this information was available through other means, or whether or not the accuracy or the detail of the information gained from the research method warrants the extra time taken.

Effectiveness of particular participatory methods can consider whether or not the approaches or methods allowed representation of different local interests, whether they were able to generate desired results, whether or not they encourage strengthening of local individual and organizational capacity, and whether or not they encourage farmer experimentation.

Relevance or appropriateness relates to the flexibility of the process to adapt to the local context and emerging needs, whether or not the tools are suitable to the capacities of the researchers and community, and whether or not the approach is reaching stakeholders at the scales relevant to be effective for addressing the research problem.

It is important to define from the outset what weight will be given to each of these dimensions.

WHAT to Monitor and Evaluate?

Understanding the condition of the community before the project was initiated is useful in order to provide a point of comparison for monitor and evaluating changes that occur during the project and to understand how the research process contributed to these changes. Participatory baseline analysis conducted at the beginning of the project can provide a point of reference for comparison and for understanding change in the community. It is useful to distinguish between the different kinds of results generated from the research: outputs, processes, outcomes, impact and reach. These can be briefly defined as follows:

Outputs describe the concrete and tangible products of the research as well as the occurrence of the research activities themselves (see the Guiding Questions 1 below).

Processes describe the methods and approaches used for the research.

Outcomes describe the changes that occur within the community or with the researchers that can be attributed, at least in part, to the research process and outputs.

Impact describes overall changes that occur in the community to which the research project is one of many contributing factors. One such impact often expected from participatory research is social transformation (see the Guiding Questions 2 below).

Reach describes who is influenced by the research and who acts because of this influence.

Source: Adapted from McAllister and Vernooy, 1999

Appropriateness

Appropriateness and risks concerning monitoring and evaluating participatory research can be considered from various perspectives. In terms of risks, research may not be able to meet its goals and/or could unintentionally cause harm to the community or to specific groups within the community despite achieving it goals. For example, research aimed at sustainable community management of common resources may be manipulated by more powerful stakeholders and may unintentionally neglect representation of marginal groups or women. In consequence, these groups may lose access to important resources.

These kinds of social risks research need to be carefully anticipated during proposal development and monitored throughout the project to ensure that specific groups are not significantly disadvantaged by the research. Careful anticipation of social risks involved in the research can help establish the need for care in identifying the different groups who might be affected by the research. Potential risks from participatory research and from not recognising and involving stakeholder groups can be anticipated before the project begins. This brings us to ethics.

Ethics

Creating unrealistic expectations for concrete development interventions at the community level is a common problem for participatory research projects and causes disappointment and suspicion in the community. This can also have negative consequences for future work of the research institutions by affecting their acceptance in communities. This issue should be addressed in the proposal. There are several possible ways to deal with local expectations.

The participatory research project could be linked to a development initiative that has the mandate to provide concrete services to the community. However, this is not always an option.

Researchers should be clear in the proposal about how they will be transparent to the community about the goals of the research and what the community can realistically expect to gain.

The proposal could demonstrate a mechanism for generating some small concrete livelihood benefits to the community early on in the research process, such as small rotating credit schemes or helping establish seed banks, so that local people see benefits from the time they have given to participate in the research.

Confidentiality of information and security about how information gathered from community participation will be used is important because often researchers discover activities that would be illegal according to the state (for example, capturing of endangered species or logging in protected areas). Furthermore, information concerning resource ownership could be used by the government, for example, to extract taxes. It is important that the researchers address this issue in the proposal, and that they ensure that the identities of informants are concealed in their research notes and reports. One way of doing so is by using numerical codes for interviewees, and keeping their identities separate from the research documents. In addition, aliases should be used in reports which will be made public and which include anecdotal information from specific individuals or groups.

Informed consent from local people and groups for participation in participatory research is not as simple as it seems, and in many cases, gaining genuine informed consent for community involvement in the research process is difficult. Obstacles include:

The concept of informed consent is not always clear among researchers, let alone among community members. Researchers may not respect or understand peoples' wish NOT to be involved.

The risks of involvement in the research process may not be apparent to either the researchers or community - therefore it may be difficult to estimate the costs and benefits of participation.

Power relations between researchers and community, and within the community itself may result in coerced consent. Individuals may feel they cannot refuse involvement because of pressure from village leaders or government officials. In addition, cultural/social relations of respect for researchers may make it impolite or socially unacceptable for local people not to agree to participate.

Anticipation and expectation of benefits by community members from their participation in the research process may lead people to participate, even if the limitations of potential benefits has been articulated by the researchers.

Informed consent is related to transparency of the whole research process; hence, this includes the monitoring and evaluation activities. Researchers should address the informed consent issue upfront in the proposal (see the Guiding Questions 3 below).

Source: Adapted from McAllister and Vernooy, 1999

References

Estrella, M. and J. Gaventa. 1998. Who Counts Reality? Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Literature Review. Prepared for the International Workshop on Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: Experiences and Lessons, held at the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR), Cavite, Philippines, November 24-27, 1997. IDS Workshop Paper 70. Sussex, UK: Institute of Development Studies.

Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of Success. Designing, Managing and Monitoring Conservation and Development Projects. Washington DC/Covelo, California: Island Press.

McAllister, K. and R. Vernooy. 1999. Action and Reflection: A Guide for Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Research. Ottawa: IDRC.

Vernooy, R., Sun Qiu and Xu Jianchu (eds). 2003. Voices for Change: Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation in China. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre and Kunming: Yunnan Science and Technoloy Press.

Contributed by:
Ronnie Vernooy
Email: rvernooy@idrc.ca

14
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation with Pastoralists

Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) is an integral part of a participatory planning cycle that incorporates both external and indigenous knowledge and perceptions. It allows all participants in the development process to keep track of where they are going and to recognize where and when it is necessary to change track in order to reach their agreed objectives. It stimulates mutual learning by all stakeholders, including policymakers and donors. PM&E is a topic important for development cooperation as a whole, because it embraces questions of impact and sustainability.

PM&E experiences were sought by looking into official databases of published literature and in the internet, communicating within an informal network of persons and institutions working with livestock-keepers, and drawing from the authors' field experiences. Most of the documents in PM&E among pastoralists and another livestock-keepers came from Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

The search covered PM&E of:

change in the condition of natural resources (environmental monitoring);

how the resources are being managed, i.e., of local institutions and social relations of natural resource management (NRM);

intervention projects, referring primarily to the interactions between the local resource managers and external supporting agencies; and

participatory experimentation (on-farm/in-herd trials implemented by livestock-keepers and scientists or development workers).

The review yielded numerous reports on PM&E training, several guidebooks and plans for establishing PM&E systems, and some cases of facilitating multi-stakeholder platforms for NRM and resolving local conflicts. However, there were only a few examples of actual implementation of PM&E together with pastoralists or other livestock-keepers that gave balanced attention to concerns of both the producers and the intervening agents. For example, in several cases, projects had involved pastoralists in monitoring the use and status of rangeland resources, but seldom according to criteria and methods that were identified together with pastoralists.

The tools applied in PM&E were the same as in the participatory planning processes (e.g., maps, timelines, historical matrices, ranking, proportional piling). However, field experiences showed that it is not the tools but rather the approach taken to PM&E that is crucial for success: an approach based on negotiation between the local resource users and the external partners on what was to be monitored and evaluated, by whom and in what way.

Potentials of PM&E

In only a few cases did pastoralists find the PM&E process sufficiently beneficial for themselves to want to continue it without external project support.

People practicing extensive livestock keeping did not want PM&E systems that involved intensive data collection. They preferred simple PM&E systems with low intensity of data collection, using methods of recording and analysis that depend more on memory and discussion than on written records.

People who live in sparsely populated areas like the drylands appreciate the opportunity to discuss with peers. Periodic meetings during which environmental or socio-economic conditions or project processes and outputs could be discussed in a semi-structured way seemed to be preferable to data-intensive monitoring.

Various visualization techniques used during meetings proved to be useful, such as before-and-after matrices, maps, proportional piling, flow and impact diagrams, and SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) charts. The repeated use of such tools in successive workshops at intervals of several months or a year can form an element of PM&E.

Instead of frequent and continuous observations and records, a series of short evaluation workshops can be used to monitor progress.

Indigenous or grassroots indicators, particularly with respect to NRM, offer a good entry point into PM&E. These can be part of an integrated set of indicators for a PM&E system developed jointly with scientists.

Few efforts have been made to encourage local development agents to identify indigenous indicators themselves, although these are the local actors who are most likely to continue practicing a PM&E system with pastoralists.

PM&E was sometimes introduced deliberately in an attempt to give a voice to previously marginalized user groups, such as women or nomads. This was sought within the framework of multi-stakeholder platforms that functioned as monitoring mechanisms for better management of common resources.

Facilitated negotiation allowed the different interest groups to reach agreement on what can be done within their capacities and means, and what needs to be monitored by whom. It became evident that the negotiation process must continue through joint assessment of the very PM&E system that the platform puts in place, examining whether the concerns of all stakeholder groups have been included. Thus, platform building becomes a continuous process fed by self-evaluation.

Truly participatory M&E potentially contributes to local capacity building and institutional development. Appropriate forms of PM&E can help the local people manage their own affairs better and increase the likelihood that project-supported activities will continue after the project ends.

Traps in PM&E

The many cases of less participatory M&E systems revealed that attempts to set up PM&E systems can fall into several traps.

Failing to answer the questions: Why monitor? Who needs and will use what information? Not all aspects of development can be and should be monitored in a participatory way. PM&E is applicable only with respect to those issues that are important enough to the participants that they are willing to invest their time and other inputs in doing the monitoring. If scientists or development workers wished to monitor certain parameters that were not of immediate interest to the livestock-keepers, or to an exactitude that only scientists wanted, it became necessary to pay local enumerators or to provide other forms of incentive (e.g., free veterinary care) to persuade livestock-keepers to take the measurements and keep the records.

Failing to recognize the biases to which participatory approaches to collecting and interpreting information can lead, especially where pastoralists are involved who do not have a relationship of trust with outsiders or who see the exercise as a chance to seize advantages. A case in point is drought monitoring, when declaration of a state of drought can bring financial assistance to livestock-keepers. Many intervention projects were not, at least initially (and, in some cases, also not even later), aware of the extent to which PM&E of environmental trends, organizational development or project-supported activities could become part of a power play between different resource-user groups or levels of government.

Lessons Learned

The issues to be monitored have to be of genuine interest to the partners involved.

Indicators must be simple and capable of communicating something to the people wanting to act on the results.

The recording needs to be done in a form that partners can manage.

It must be noted that pastoral communities in developing countries have a strong oral tradition, low levels of literacy and little access to modern information and communication technology, with the exception of radio.

The low population density in pastoral areas, their remoteness and their poor infrastructure in terms of roads and telecommunications can make PM&E quite costly, even if records are limited to the most essential.

These costs are justified if the PM&E process contributes to building capacities for managing natural - including human - resources. Capacity building for PM&E is necessary not only at the level of local beneficiaries, but also among the other partners in the development process.

Development agencies that are truly committed to pastoral development need to make long-term investments in participatory approaches within the framework of process-oriented projects and programs.

PM&E can then be a very useful means of enhancing joint learning by pastoralists and other development planners about sustainable use of the rangelands and improving pastoral livelihoods.

References

ActionAid-Somaliland. 1999. Programme Review June 1998 by Sanaag Community Based Organisation. London: ActionAid.

Bayer, W. & A. Waters-Bayer. 2002. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) with Pastoralists: A Review of Experiences and Annotated Bibliography. GTZ Working Paper. Eschborn: GTZ/Leusden: ETC Ecoculture.

Catley, A. 1999c. Monitoring and Impact Assessment of Community-based Animal Health Projects in Southern Sudan: Towards Participatory Approaches and Methods - A Report for Véterinaires sans Frontières Belgium and VÉterinaires sans Frontières Switzerland. Nairobi: IIED Participation and Veterinary Epidemiology Project.

Kiema, A. 2000. Méthodologie de Suivi d'Impact des Codes Locaux de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles en Région Sahelienne du Burkina Faso - Zones de Kishi-Beiga, Darkoye et Djobou. Dori: Programme Sahel Burkinabé.

Waters-Bayer, A. and W. Bayer. 1994. Planning with Pastoralists: PRA and More - A Review of Methods Focused on Africa. GTZ Working Paper. Eschborn: GTZ.

Contributed by:
Ann Waters-Bayer, Wolfgang Bayer
and Annette von Lossau
Email: waters-bayer@web.de

15
Outcome Mapping: Striking a Balance Between Accountability and Learning

Outcome mapping (OM) is an integrated participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) system that looks at both development results and internal performance within a program or project. It aims to strike a balance between accountability and learning. OM focuses on changes in the behavior of direct partners (as outcomes); assesses contributions to the achievement of outcomes; and designs in relation to the broader development context. Focussing on changes in partners' behavior, relationships or actions allows a program to:

measure results within its sphere of influence

obtain feedback about its efforts to improve its performance

take credit for its contributions to the achievement of outcomes

show progress towards outcomes

Outcome mapping looks at outcomes, for PM&E, in the context of achieving developmental goals rather than focus on pure impacts.

Outcome Mapping in the NEPED Project Context

The Nagaland Empowerment of People through Economic Development Project (NEPED) was Nagaland's first donor-supported project. The implementing team lacked capacity in management and reporting. There was a single-minded focus on executing field activities without allowing for monitoring or evaluation of outputs. As a result, while work in the field looked picture perfect, there was absolute confusion in the office with data, information and experiences finding no apparent parking space. Lack of knowledge and capacity to fit these into an M&E format that was poorly understood was frustrating, to say the least. With the end-of-project evaluation fast approaching, the frustration turned to desperation. The work had been done well, downstream partners corroborated the quality of outcomes and achievements, and yet there was little to show on paper in quantitative or qualitative terms.

Why Outcome Mapping

The following section describes the application of outcome mapping in the NEPED Project within its two phases, focusing on the challenges addressed.

Challenges Addressed in Phase 1

Lack of Baseline Data at Inception

Given the vast reach of NEPED having worked in 1,056 villages in Nagaland, it would have been impossible to conduct a baseline study and survey. Outcome mapping was used as a simulation exercise to go backwards in memory to realistically generate data from the last five years to be used in lieu of baseline data to evaluate performance.

Retrospective M&E for Impact Assessment

NEPED underwent the throes that come with any first-time project. Frequent changes in management, reporting procedures, management information system (MIS) and M&E formats, strategy, etc. disoriented the project team and caused perplexity. Through OM, the team was able to identify major accomplishments, gaps (and not omissions) in the first phase, around which the second phase is designed.

Even as each activity set was viewed as successfully performed when looking from the bottom-up, no clear-cut linkages could be established when looking at the project as a whole. In other words, there was much to show as outputs, but not much to link them to outcomes. By using OM, these linkages were established through a road map.

An interesting aspect was the role played by the body of "local experts", NEPED's "human data bank". The local experts were a group of 10 highly respected and influential farmers drawn from various tribes. They had a vast repository of indigenous knowledge on best practices and provided invaluable inputs to research, monitoring and field implementation on a continuous basis. They were conduits between the farmers NEPED worked with and the project team. They were included in the OM process to bring in "voices from the field", especially in the area of on-farm trials and farmer innovations.

To Reflect as a Team for Self-Evaluation

The project team had gained considerable experience in implementing the project at the field level, with varied levels of success that needed to be collated and analyzed for its own internal self-assessment. By using the organizational practices tool and developing success markers, even the minutest details, that would otherwise have remained forgotten, emerged with solid quantifiable data on best examples, clearly establishing how the team as an organization had evolved along with its partners.

To Share and Record Experiences

During the course of implementing the project, the team's field journals had references to stray bits of information which seemed useful, but remained unreported as it did not fit into the logframe-based reporting format, e.g., farmer innovations, best practices, feedback, indigenous knowledge, local tweaks, etc.

The innovations and tweaks emerged from the data on organizational practices and progress markers. Interestingly, most of these examples would have been called weaknesses, deviations or challenges under conventional project evaluation. OM reflected them as achievements. With the use of outcome mapping, the external evaluation team was saved the trouble of 'digging' out data at the field level, having only to validate the findings with user groups.

Challenges Addressed in Phase 2

Having realized the utility and flexibility of OM as a tool, there was no hesitation in using it again, this time for design, planning, assessing performance and M&E. The strategy maps were used to increase the project's sphere of influence over boundary partners and even to monitor one of them, the state government.

Interestingly, the project team would be reporting to, and be evaluated on, the donor specified Logical Framework Analysis (LFA)-based M&E format – and yet chose to use both. OM would be used to supplement, enrich and feed data into the donor M&E format. This format is designed in pure quantifiable terms, hence OM would also be used to seek out both qualitative and quantitative data, and to help inform and re-evaluate future activities. OM is being used as a tool to engage with communities to understand the impact and effectiveness of the project, and information generated is being fed into another format to meet reporting needs. OM's flexible and participatory approach better enables the team to discuss results with the communities and with other 'boundary partners' and to assess and redesign strategies for work ahead.

For Project Design

After being asked to imagine who/what would change if NEPED was to be "wildly successful" at the end of the project period we created the vision - mission statement, identified who would need to change (our boundary partners) and created outcome challenges for these partners.

The team had been actively involved in the preparation of the project proposal and hence had in depth knowledge of all project components. This really helped in weaving the vision-mission-outcome challenges around the components to come up with progress markers, strategy maps and the organizational practices. Validation was carried out by adapting elements of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools like semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and key informant feedback that fit in very well with outcome mapping.

For Monitoring

The team then moved on to identifying the monitoring priorities and putting together the outcome, strategy and performance journals for the next two years in order to inform itself. The team is using progress markers to monitor behavioral change induced by the project in three boundary partners: farmers, village authorities and Self-Help Groups, who are directly within its sphere of influence. Change in the remaining boundary partner, the state government, is also being monitored by assessing the quality of responses from it to the strategies adopted for it by the project.

For Evaluation

An evaluation plan has been prepared within the given framework, which is the last stage of the outcome mapping process. This was not an easy task. The second phase of NEPED is very broad-based and complex with activities ranging from revolving micro credit and agri-marketing to agroforestry and research. The ranges of partners are wide and the audience even wider.

What was Gained from Outcome Mapping

It provided the team conceptual clarity on the project. The team graduated from the stereotype input-activity-output supervisors and is able to link these around outcome level issues. They can now 'map' their progress into the future, recognizing the major actors and forces, predict possible gaps/threats and strategically plan for it in advance.

It brought in a human dimension to the project. Outcome mapping works on the premise that development brings about change in people, especially their behavior. An OM map presents real-life pictures of human beings - their perceptions, their aspirations, their environment and the challenges to realizing them.

It was empowering. Outcome mapping is highly participatory and consultative. Although discussions are initiated within the project team thinking as a unit, validation by partners enables broadening of the canvas, acknowledging the presence of each as an indispensable unit of the whole process of development. In NEPED, there were cases where farmers deviated from the prescribed menu of activities on their own, without supervision, to come up with more cost and labor-effective innovations, being aware of what was the desired output and the long-term plan. This feeling of empowerment produces positive energy towards successful and sustainable implementation of the project.

It increased capacity and skills. One of the challenges faced in using outcome mapping was validating with boundary partners, especially at the village level. This was so different from the top-down government-sponsored development that was thrust upon Naga villagers. When consulted, it created suspicion and took a while to break down these barriers and to gain their trust and give them the feeling that they were indeed partners. The team had to be trained in formal PRA and facilitation skills. With government officials, who consider participation a threat to their authority, the approach had to be different.

It brought cohesion in the team and partners. In creating the OM map the active participation of all enabled everyone to see the 'big picture' and define roles and contributions within this. Moreover, validating M&E findings with downstream partners provide invaluable inputs from farmers and village groups and help in constantly redesigning project delivery targeted at sustaining the program. This also enhances the feeling of ownership over the project.

Some Challenges in the Use of Outcome Mapping

Validation with grassroots partners can be very time-consuming as the jargon has to be demystified first. Strong PRA skills are required.

Outcome mapping challenges socio-cultural biases, e.g., building a vision statement in Thailand was difficult as Buddhism believes in "karma" or fate. Likewise, in Nagaland, farmers who live on daily subsistence basis found it difficult to think (dream) one year down the line, leave aside five years.

Acceptability by donors who consider it a threat to more traditional forms of M&E methods, also its focus on qualitative changes.

Outcome mapping's major strength of versatility and adaptability for multiple users based on needs can actually hinder attempts to mainstream OM as different programs use it differently to suit their needs.

Ever so often, programs are caught in the trap of accounting for the resources used to achieve quantitative outputs that the "development agenda" remains forgotten. Outcome mapping enables a program to articulate its performace story, to measure and attribute the development process to the various actors involved and to take credit for achivements or outcomes. After all, development is by, and for, the people and a program can only influence, but not control, change.

Contributed by:
Raj K. Verma
Email: raj@leadindia.org

This page intentionally left blank.

Approaches

This page intentionally left blank.

16
Beyond the Problem-Solving Approach to Sustainable Rural Development

In a 1997 monograph entitled, "Rural Development From Vision to Action", the World Bank posed the following rhetorical question: "If rural development is so important, why is it not happening?" The Bank posed three answers: poor commitment and capacities of countries; waning international commitment to agriculture and rural development; and poor commitment on the part of the World Bank. However, there is an additional explanation, which may be operating at a deeper level and contributing to these perceptions--the current problem-solving approach of many research and development organizations may be affecting their capacity as change agents.

Although many such organizations have reconceptualized sustainable development in much broader and more holistic terms, and have made significant progress in evolving towards more participatory and people-centered approaches, a more positive approach is required to complement the problem-solving focus, as a way of ameliorating its self-limiting aspects.

Mental Models of Sustainable Rural Development

Mental models are the images, assumptions and stories that we carry in our subconscious minds about how the world works. They are powerful in affecting what we do because they affect what we see. Different observers of the same event describe it differently because their mental models influence the details that they emphasize.

The prevailing mental model of research and development institutions dedicated to sustainable rural development is that they exist to solve development problems. This has led to a diagnostic and often reactive problem-solving mode of action, and to a culture of trouble-shooting experts who develop solutions (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Problem-Solving Process in "Research-for-Development" Organizations.
An underlying assumption of such organizations is that they exist to solve problems.

Mental models have changed from the 1980's Transfer-of-Technology or Central Source model of sustainable development towards a more demand-led and people-centered approach. This approach focuses considerable attention on the importance of participation and equity, defines development much more broadly, and expands the concept of "expert" knowledge to include local, indigenous and informal knowledge as well as external, formal knowledge.

The key dimensions of development include:

Empowerment - embodied as choices, freedoms, participation in decisions, dignity, respect, cooperation and the sense of belonging to a wider community.

Equity - seen as equal opportunity in access to natural and social and economic resources.

Sustainability - defined as meeting present needs without compromising those of future generations.

Security - encompassing freedom from violence, discrimination, unemployment and disease.

This more holistic and ecological view of sustainable rural development is framed as a positive vision or a dream to inspire us; nevertheless, the missions of research-oriented organizations dedicated to sustainable rural development, and the participatory tools and methods that they use for navigating the development process remain grounded in the problem-solving mindset.

Beyond the Problem-Solving Approach to Sustainble Rural Development

Sustainable rural development seems elusive because people and organizations are constrained by their perception that resources, and hence their capacities, are limited. Other related constraints include the need to have concrete definition of problems, and the reluctance to step into unknown territory (e.g., other disciplines and ways of knowing requisite to a more holistic perspective). Together, these constraints limit human imagination, vision and enterprise. The World Bank's explanation for the poor track record in sustainable rural development is clearly grounded in a negative view of inadequate capacity and commitment. This may be a consequence of a deeply held mental model that is currently below the level of awareness of the World Bank and many other organizations.

The mental model says that our world is full of problems and that is the job of governments and development-oriented organizations to help fix them. A complementary approach is to choose to "see" consciously and focus on possibilities, capabilities and assets rather than focusing exclusively on problems, needs and deficits. By focusing on positive elements, individuals, organizations, communities and even societies can tap the transformative and creative energies of people who believe that humans have the collective capacity to create the future they desire. These ideas are not new, but rather, are part of a paradigm shift that is gradually challenging our mechanistic view of the world and moving towards a more holistic ecological view that gives greater eminence to the role of human consiousness in constructing reality.

Appreciative Inquiry: An Example of a Vision-Based Approach

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is one of a family of approaches that can complement problem-solving by counterbalancing its self-limiting aspects. AI is an approach for planning and working for change that identifies the best of "what is" as the grounding for pursuing a vision of "what could be." It is a cooperative and participatory search for the strengths and positive forces found within every system. The AI approach involves collaborative inquiry, based on affirmative questioning and theory building, to uncover and accentuate the positive in a community, enhancing cultural identity, spirit and vision. AI is selectively attentive to the best and highest qualities in a system.

Local people can use their understanding of the "best of what is" to construct a vision of what their community might be if they identify their strengths and then improve or intensify them. They achieve this goal by creating a provocative vision for the future that can build on past and current achievements. These visions are realistic dreams that motivate a community to reach for something better, based on an understanding of what gives them hope now. Figure 2 describes the four steps in the Appreciate Inquiry cycle.

Figure 2. Four Steps of the Appreciative Inquiry Cycle

The core task in the Discovery phase is to uncover and appreciate the moments of excellence when people experienced the community in its most alive and effective state. Participants then seek to understand the conditions that made the high points possible, such as leadership, relationships, technologies, values, capacity building or external relationships. They deliberately choose not to analyze deficits, but rather to systematically identify and learn from even the smallest victories. In this phase, people share stories of accomplishments, discuss the positive attributes at the core of their community and identify the aspects of their history that they most value and want to enhance in the future.

In the Dream phase, people challenge the status quo by constructing practical visions that are grounded in the community's history, but seek to expand the community's potential. Images of the future emerge from the positive examples from the past.

In the Design phase, participants create a strategy to carry out their provocative visions, incorporating the qualities of community life that they want to protect and the relationships that they want to achieve.

The Doing phase involves the construction of the new image of the future. It is a time of continuous learning, experimentation and innovation, adjustment and improvisation in the service of shared ideals.

Appreciative Inquiry views collective imagination and dialogue about the future as infinite human resource for generating constructive change. This unfolds organically as people project a "horizon of expectation" that brings the future into the present as a mobilizing agent. This positive orientation can be powerfully combined with whole-brain approaches that draw upon the creative power of heterogenous groups with a spectrum of thinking preferences and capacities (including interpersonal, emotional, spiritual, practical, organizational, administrative, logical, analytical, technical, holistic, imaginative, conceptual and integrative). Such groups can synthesize a rich collective picture of what should and could be from many individual views of the world, and the energy that derives from positive intangibles like hope, excitement, creativity, humor, inspiration, caring and camaraderie.

References

Cooperrider, D.L. and W.A. Pasmore. 1991. The Organization Dimension of Global Change. Human Relations, 44(8):763-787.

Cooperrider, D.L., P.F. Sorensen Jr., D. Whitney and T.F. Yaeger (eds). 2000. Appreciative Inquiry. Rethinking Human Organization Towards a Positive Theory of Change. Stipes Publishing. Campaign, Illinois. 287pp.

Cooperrider, D.L. and S. Srivastava. 1987. Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life. Research in Organizational Change and Development 1:129-169.

Elliot, C. 1999. Locating the Energy for Change: An Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, Canada. 287 pp.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA. Sage Publication.

Serge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday, NY. 424pp.

UNDP. 1998. Overcoming Human Poverty. United Nations Development Program. New York. 94pp.

Contributed by:
Ann R. Braun
E-mail: a.braun@xtra.co.nz

17
Participatory Methods in the Analysis of Poverty

Recent years have witnessed a great interest in participatory methods as instruments for poverty analysis. The insights which these participatory approaches have provided concerning the experience of poverty have contributed to the establishment of a mainstream multi-dimensional definition of poverty.

This paper reviews and analyzes the literature on participatory methods in the analysis of poverty: how they have emerged, how they have been adopted in this context and the challenges they pose.

Meanings Revisited: The Concept of Participation

Three big shifts seem to have characterized the debate on participation. In the 1970s, "popular participation" was seen as an important component of rural development and basic needs strategies, and as such figured in the programmatic statements of many international agencies. In the 1980s, it became associated with discourses of grassroots self-reliance and self-help, with non-government organizations (NGOs) often having to fill in the void left by a retreating state as a consequence of neo-liberal reforms. The 1990s saw participation being advocated on a larger scale, being moved beyond the boundaries of project or grassroots interventions to other spheres of social, economic and political life. Participation came then to be seen as a tool towards important policy objectives such as "empowerment" and "good governance", while maintaining, at least in theory, a role as an end in itself.

Participatory methods developed in the context of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) became the central tool for development agencies to embrace participation. A difference in understandings of participation and different agendas by different actors continued, so that even the adoption of similar methods could not bridge these gaps. Arguably, however, the adoption of participatory methods set in motion other processes, creating new spaces for dialogue and participation and transforming behaviors and attitudes of various kinds of actors in unexpected ways. Cornwall (2000) provides a range of examples in this respect.

Ideas and Tools: From PRA to Participatory Poverty Assessments

PRA has been defined as "a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act" (Chambers, 1994a). It emerged in the early 1990s building on the insights and methodological innovations arising from other sources, including:

"activist participatory research" with its use of "dialogue and participatory research to enhance people's awareness and confidence"

agroecosystem analysis contributing a series of tools such as diagramming, mapping, scoring and ranking of different actions

insights provided by the work of applied and development anthropologists and those of field research in farming systems, emphasizing farmers' capabilities of conducting their own analysis

most notably, the development of Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA)

RRA had already taken in insights and methods from these other sources, and provided a quick way of gathering information on local realities building from local people's insights. RRA questioned the urban biases implicit in outsiders' role as development consultants (the so-called "development tourism") by giving a more significant role to local knowledge, nonetheless still elicited for analysis by outsiders. Further, RRA challenged the way knowledge was generated, and responded to the challenges of "hard science" (McGee, 1997) by stressing the two key principles of "optimum ignorance" (find out as much as you need to know now) and "appropriate imprecision" (there is no need to know everything exactly) (Cornwall, 2000). RRA also opened the door to methodological experimentation, appearing in different forms, among which Participatory RRA emerged later developing into PRA.

The core difference between RRA and PRA is not only in the extent to which local people are included in the research, but in their ultimate purpose. "A PRA is intended to enable local people to conduct their own analysis, and often to plan and take action" (Chambers, 1994a). By becoming a way in which participation was enacted, the qualitative and often visual tools used in PRA acquired a new and distinctive characteristic. In practice, however, the extent to which these tools effectively brought about participation in all the phases of the project cycle has been questioned leading to many criticisms from those who sought a radical change in the way development efforts were conducted.

Without dwelling on the pros and cons of PRA and the way it was implemented, it is important to stress that the flexibility of the methods meant that it was possible to use them within alternative methodologies. Often in practice, therefore, it was their cost effectiveness and the timeliness with which they produced results, rather than their empowering effects, which underpinned the support they were given.

If the widespread adoption of participatory techniques challenged the extent to which their distinguishing features were maintained in practice, a further challenge was posed by the "scaling up" of PRA from project planning to input into policy making. The most evident form in which this scaling up has taken place has been the Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPA) performed by the World Bank, introduced as complement to Poverty Assessments in the face of criticisms of their exclusive money metric focus. These PPAs have spread rapidly. By 1998, half of the completed poverty assessments performed by the World Bank included a participatory component (Robb, 1999).

By delinking participatory techniques from the direct involvement with community projects and planning, the road was open for more extractive uses of the PPAs. And indeed the emphasis was initially in providing information which could provide information for better policies. A new generation of PPAs, however, seems now to have taken up the challenge of "influencing the policy process". A wider spectrum of actors have been drawn into these processes, which place as much emphasis on the impact of their learning on their agency within the policy processes as on the information that is produced (Cornwall, 2000).

The Methodology of Participatory Poverty Assessments

From the methodological point of view, PPAs can be classified as contextual methods of analysis (Booth et al., 1998) i.e., data collection methods which (taking a poverty-related definition) "attempt to understand poverty dimensions within the social, cultural, economic and political environment of a locality" or of a group of people, by prioritizing local people's perceptions. Though different research methods can be contextual to different degrees, this categorization juxtaposes participatory methods with methods which aim to standardize data collection and analysis, as for example in large household surveys. This way of classifying approaches offers the advantage of breaking away from the quantitative-qualitative dichotomy which is generally seen as characterizing the comparison of survey and participatory data, but which does not consider the potential of obtaining quantitative information from PPAs (through rankings for example; other ways of quantifying information are more debatable).

Participatory approaches, however, are not only contextual, they also emphasize poor people's creativity and ability to investigate and analyze their own reality (Chambers, 1994a). So, they try not only to understand reality at the local level, but they do so through local people's own analysis. For a researcher, this involves not only adopting a set of different tools, but also completely different behaviors and attitudes. By recognizing their role as outsiders, researchers need to redefine themselves as facilitators who have to share in local knowledge and be willing to review their own values and perceptions critically. These behavioral elements are central to the success and truthfulness of the exercise, though they are also among the most difficult to standardize and to verify ex post, when looking at existing research.

One important challenge to participatory poverty assessments is that the nonextractive nature of the exercise and the efforts not to raise expectations that cannot be met is not easy to reconcile with the policy focus of the poverty assessment, when those policies are remote from the local level.

The Tools

Various tools are used in PRA. A classification into visualized analysis, interviewing and sampling, and group and team dynamic methods has been suggested by Cornwall et al. (1993) quoted by Estrella and Gaventa (1998). Examples include:

participatory mapping and modelling: people are asked for example to make maps or three dimensional representations of their social demographics, health, environment, etc.

time lines and trend and change analysis: describing changes in land uses, changes in cropping patterns, chronologies of events relevant to local life

seasonal calendars: describing seasonal variations in activities, diet, labor, expenditure, debts, etc.

wealth and well-being grouping and rankings: by categorizing households or individuals; the poorest are identified by locally-perceived well-being indicators, often as a by-product of a wealth of information on livelihood strategies, assets, access to factors of production is gathered

The variety of these methods and their flexibility distinguishes them from other methods which elicit self-perception data through structured questionnaires (as for example in identifying the minimum level of income necessary for the poverty line, e.g., Pradhan and Ravallion, 1998). As these tools are often adopted in a sequence, the assessment can be tailored to fit the context and the issues to be analyzed appropriately. Further, different tools are used to triangulate (i.e., validating through cross-checking) the results which might allow different insights to emerge.

In performing a PPA, care is needed to choose tools and sequences which are well suited to capture the core elements of deprivation in the specific context and the specific aspects of interest in the assessment. This might imply, for example, adopting different sequences for urban and rural contexts. As an example of the variety of issues which might be investigated in a PPA, we present a description of the issues and methods considered in the World Bank's Zambian PPA in rural areas (Table 1).

Looking through the table, two main features stand out: one is the variety of issues discussed, the other is the number of methods suggested for treating every issue. The detailed breakdown shows that different issues can be dealt with jointly or sequentially, which reinforces the importance of careful planning of the sequences to be adopted, not least to avoid repetition which would be time wasting as well as boring for the participants. It is also clear that, though a PPA is meant to inform policies, not all types of poverty-related research would be equally concerned with discussing policy-options, especially if the research is unlikely to have a direct bearing on the options available. It could therefore raise expectations which could not be fulfilled.